I will divide my post into two halves. The first will deal with your persistent dogmatic idiosyncrasies; the second will deal with the on topic comments you made about the death penalty in this case.Part 1: KivrotHaTaavah’s god
QUOTE(KivrotHaTaavah @ Mar 23 2006, 04:32 AM)
To think otherwise is for you to say that you deny God while at the same time setting yourself up as God.
You know, you are really going to have to stop implying that anyone who does not follow your personal interpretation of your God cannot be moral. Somebody is going to take offence. Somebody might also point out to you that nearly every atrocity in human history, including both those of the Church and those of Stalin and Hitler, was carried out because somebody claimed to have a ‘higher morality’ than others, and that this higher morality should override basic human morality.
I'm not setting myself up as god or anything, I'm not the one arguing for killing somebody.
And if that wasn't my delusion [faith], then I wouldn't otherwise be here talking to you about right and wrong, and I most certainly wouldn't be giving much thought for our soon to be executed friend, since I would instead, as some of the poets among us have said, be out there eating, drinking, and otherwise indulging my perverted, sick, and twisted fantasies, and all because tomorrow we die.
Yes, of course. Because that’s what ALL
people who don’t believe in your opinion about your god do, they go indulge perverted twisted fantasies every night, because only YOU can have any sense of what is right and wrong, and anyone else is just a member of new Sodom, right?
Please. You are going from insulting to exceedingly insulting, and worse, you are not even making any logical sense. Firstly there exists plenty of morality outside your personal religious world, and as I have already stated, and you have agreed, there has existed in the history of your church a shocking and unimaginable amount of cruelty and inhumanity, all because somebody claimed that the ‘higher morality’ said it was OK to burn midwives at the stake, so it was done.
And, sorry, but it is not my fault that you simply refuse to see the logical implications of your own philosophy. And to that extent, I make no apology whatsoever for finding absurd your claim that we can't bring our religion into the discussion because the same cannot be discussed logically. Sorry, friend, but life having value is a moral judgment that cannot be logically argued. We either accept that proposition or we do not.
I love how often you contradict yourself when you get ranting.
Firstly, you have pointed out no logical implications of ‘my philosophy’ to discuss. You have not even talked about my philosophy except to repeat ad nausium without foundation or evidence that it must be immoral because it does not believe in KivrotHaTaavah’s god.
Secondly, not only have you done nothing to contradict my statement that religion should be excluded from these debates because it is difficult to ague logically, but you have served us up on a silver platter your last post as a perfect case study proving my point. So lost in your religious moralising you were that you forgot to deal with any of my points, or even address the issue at hand…
Thirdly, How amusing that you state ‘we either accept the proposition (that life has value) or we do not’. I agree completely, strange how your position totally contradicts that. Which is why answering one death with another death makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe his opinion might have then been more enlightened, given that while you and I can attribute more monstrous evil than we care to contemplate to those purporting to act on behalf of and/or according to the purported desires of the External Standard, the reality nevertheless remains that the most murderous, brutalizing, and dehumanizing regimes in history have been the godless atheistic states that have, in fact and at law.
Well, its good you admit that the imposition of your moral standard has resulted in thousands of years of some of humanities worst atrocities, yet to call Hitler and his modern ilk killers of ‘godless atheists’ is a bit bizarre. It almost seems you are implying the Holocaust and Stalin’s genocides came about BECAUSE these were atheist. They came about because they were totalitarian racist megalomaniacs, this was not done in the name of atheism, like the horrors and excesses of the Church were done in the name of God.
Besides, its entirely irrelevant. Once we agree the imposition of your religious external standard is the direct cause of uncountable horrors, brutalities, tortures and atrocities, it makes your whole foundation about you being the only capable arbiter of what is ‘moral’ a touch weak, would you not say?
Let me give you one example, involving the Dominican Father Bartolome de Las Casas.
Your example does an admirable job or arguing my side of the case. Here we have two religious men using the same religious text to argue two fundamentally opposing points of view about human life. Thank you for demonstrating my point. Religion can justify anything, in the hands of those who would use it to serve their own ends. For example, those offshoots of Roman Catholicism who have decided that ‘thou shalt not kill’ does not apply to state executions. I think the Roman Catholics would argue that the killer, though evil, was made in God’s Image, and as the book says, the role of Vengeance is left to the Lord.
Funny how you now find yourself on the other side of your example…
This thing called faith/religion, well, let me just say that you are wrong, as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc., give their adherents a vision of moral order in the universe, which is something that atheists such as Allardyce T. Meriweather didn't and don't have, at least if they understand the implication of their premise denying the existence of the External Standard. Which is to say that if there is no God, then there is no moral order in the universe,
Wow, when you get warmed up you REALLY start to contradict yourself with flair. I mean its literally impressive.
Above you agreed with me entirely that religions impose a moral view on their followers, (without addressing how utterly different and contradictory views held by various religions can all be ‘moral’), and then go on to say that without religion, there can be no morality.
I mean, I don’t even need to oppose your argument, you opposed it yourself. Islam, even fundamentalist Islam, to use YOUR words, “give their adherents a vision of moral order in the universe”. Those people then follow the imposed moral order OVER their own basic human morality, because ‘God says so’.
Way to argue my point there. Religion does not give morality, it imposes a psudo-divine code which replaces basic morality.
Otherwise, answer me this: How is YOUR imposed morality of killing prisoners and more justifiable than the Islamicist’s imposed morality of blowing themselves up on a bus? Both use as their first, last, and only justification, ‘My god says it is right’. So in terms of ‘moral justification’, please explain to me the difference in the relative weight of the two ‘Moral’ arguments…
You then go on and on about Lincoln, and his name as well as the slavery example of de Las Casas made me wonder: Why do you so ardently oppose the morality of your god?
After all, the bible speaks at GREAT length about slavery. How it should be done, why it should be done, the rules of treating slaves and why slaves are just property:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance”
Even how and when it is OK to kill your slaves:
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
” Exodus 21:20-21
So why don’t you own a slave? YOUR externally imposed morality says it is fine to do so. Boy, I wish I was a MORAL man. I’m agnostic, and this by your definition immoral. But If I was a MORAL man, which in your mind means following YOUR imposed morality, I could own a sex slave. That would make dating easier, just go ask a guy to buy his daughter.
“ When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
But if that is your objection, then may I ask why it is that you think that you have grounds to complain? Your position is even worse, since while the Pope and I very much disagree on the matter of the death penalty, at least we can claim that we have the bible as our guide, i.e., at least we have a beginning point of commonality. On the other hand, what do you have on offer?
Here we go, the crowning glory of your post.
What I have to offer is that I have argued against the death penalty from day 1 based on logic, statistics and evidence. I took issue with your ‘meaningless platitudes’ because you did not offer evidence, you just stated various religious moralisms you happen to believe in as IF they were argumentation. I have not used as a justification for my side of the debate that I am right because my morality says so. Your bringing of religion into the debate on the other hand did two things:
1- As I said it would, killed the debate entirely.
2- Removed any basis of logic and argumentation from the thread, replacing it with scriptural quotes as if that was a basis for a logical debate.
And what’s worse, you now again admit that despite your entire case resting on this facile argument of your personal ‘Higher morality’, you again admit that the Pope, using EXACTLY THE SAME MORAL FOUNDATION AS YOU, has an exactly opposing opinion on the matter. Your ‘beginning point of commonality’ has led you to exact opposite points, where both of you see the other side as immoral, but neither feels the need to logically argue their case because they are safe isolated in the belief that their personal opinion of their higher morality tells them their actions are right, despite the total contradiction.
Give me logic, rationalism and secular decision making any time. You have now admitted on about 5 occasions that your ‘higher morality’ can be used to justify anything, no matter how inhumane or immoral, and has been in the past.
And we do so by dressing up murder, slavery, theft and some other sin in the guise of fate and piety.
I agree entirely. Why of the top of my head I can think of one person who has dressed up murder as justice in order to escape the reality that killing is wrong, and now justifies their decision in the guise of fate and piety.
It causes me no small amount of pain to know that that verse has been used to dehumanize any number of women over the course of what I will call historic Christianity.
People MIS-interpreting the Bible did not subjugate women, The Church did, and do you know why? They did it because they were following YOUR external morality to the exact letter. This is not a fault of misinterpretation, but an exact interpretation of the text, word for word:” But I want you know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
Corinthians 11: 3,5, 8-9
Actually your external morality is very
clear in its text on the role of women. I think the problem is with you, who somehow does not feel they should follow that particular commandment, nor the one on how slavery is legal and acceptable, nor the one on how eating shellfish is an abomination, nor most of the others.
For that matter, in the case at hand, it seems according to YOUR morality, the man should be executed because he raped and murdered the child. Had he just raped the child of course, the Bible is clear in its ‘Morality’ of the consequences…
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
” Deuteronomy 22:28
(That’s about 150 to 200 dollars in modern equivalence)
Do you know why all this causes you pain, as you say? Because in these cases the imposed morality of your book CONFLICTS with your own humanist morality about what is right and wrong.
REALITY TIME: 80% of the bible must be IGNORED if you want to use it as a moral guide. The old testament is a litany of excess and slaughter in the name of God, justifying murder, rape, slavery, kidnapping, theft, incest, human sacrifice and so on. And the Christian Church was SO CONVINCED of the higher morality of this creed, that they spent almost 1600 years following its excesses in the name of god to the letter.
So PLEASE don’t come into this thread, hijack it with proselytising and scripture quotes, and then lecture ME about how ONLY YOU can be moral, and us people who do not follow your interpretation of your God cannot be anything but immoral.
And the subordinating, legitimating ideology, in all its various forms and manifestations, well, as you and I both now know, always denies that those on the receiving end have these inherent rights given them by the External Standard, even when the human[s] in question claim to be acting on behalf of that External Standard, and even when the human[s] in question otherwise claim these same rights for themselves
And here you are, doing that self-contradiction thing again. After stating in your last post again and again that the right to life was God given, inalienable and protected by the constitution, here you are going and trying to justify the state taking away that God given life.
You have otherwise made the same error that nearly every opponent of the death penalty has made, is making now, and will continue to make. According to you, of the Top 15, only we execute, but yet our homicide rate is, per capita, higher than those other 14 who don't. First off, not every state in the Union executes, so you'll need to take that into account. You otherwise might compare the homicide rate in states that don't execute with the homicide rate in states that do execute.
Firstly, wow,” the same mistake every opponent has made and will continue to make”! Strong stuff. Pity you at NO point make any effect to explain how or why it is a mistake, you just assert it is. Well, sorry, the statistics don’t lie. You can’t simply ignore them, assert they are in error and try to pretend it never happened…
Actually, my bad, you did try and make one argument. You suggested I should compare death penalty states with non death penalty states.
Average annual murder rate among Death penalty states (per 100,000) 5.1
Average annual murder rate among NON-Death penalty states: (per 100,000) 2.9
You were saying?
Then you proclaim that you've proven that there is no deterrent effect in the death penalty. Sorry, but I watch National Geographic and some other channels and shows, and the threat of death or grievous bodily injury has been shown to be an effective deterrent in the animal kingdom.
I’m sorry, let me be very clear here. You are claiming that my statistics of human behaviour nation by nation and state by state are NO GOOD, because they do not take into account other factors and differences…
THEN you use as proof of your argument that fact that death sometimes acts as a deterrent among ANIMALS
? (though, of course, you simply assert this, with no evidence…)
So the people of Death penalty states in the US have MORE in common with, say, weasels, than they do with people from non-death penalty states, or non-death penalty nations?
I mean seriously here, do you even read what you write?
And for more of the unequal equation, what higher standard are you talking about? And please, go read your dictionary. Revenge means to avenge etc. And avenge means to take satisfaction etc.
Nope, nothing about taking satisfaction or enjoyment there…http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revenge
Nope, nothing about taking satisfaction or enjoyment there…http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...67627&dict=CALD
Nope, nothing about taking satisfaction or enjoyment there…http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/Revenge.html
Nope, nothing about taking satisfaction or enjoyment there…
I’m sorry, I am running out of dictionaries one can find online. Where did you get YOUR definition of revenge? Or, is it wildly possible… that you just asserted your opinion as if it were fact again with no foundation at all?
And by the way, in even bringing up my faith, I was not directing my comments to you. I was directing them to those other members who themselves, even if only in passing, brought my God and my Lord into the discussion.
The only reference at all to religion was someone who mentioned the commandment about not killing, or not murdering depending on how you interpret it. That is why you decided to throw about 2 pages of scriptural quotes, in defiance of board rules, at us? Never making any claim that this was ‘only for the spiritual’, or anything like that at the time of course…
Besides, your first post quoted and was directed at nobody at all, and your second post was directed at me by name, so I don’t know what you are trying to claim here…
The noted article otherwise goes on to discuss the purported import of "context," though one, me, is left scratching one's, my, head, wondering just how context changes the rather plain meaning of:
"Whoever takes a man's life, by man shall his life be taken; because God made man in his image." (Genesis 9:6)
Yes, I can see how the church’s position on death penalty faced with those quotes would leave you scratching your head.
Probably exactly the same way you scratch your head about the Church’s position on Slavery:
“"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you.” (Leviticus)
Or the way you scratch your head about the Church’s position on gender relations:
“The husband is to rule over his wife. Wives are to be subject to their husbands even when the husband is disobedient to God.” (Genesis)
Or the way you scratch your head about the Church’s position on fashion:
“A cloth garment made of two kinds of material must not be worn.” (Leviticus)
Or all the other places that the Church goes directly against direct biblical statements.
Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17)
That’s true, Leviticus is very clear on who should be put to death, and people who kill another human being should be put to death.
As well, according to Leviticus, prostitutes should be put to death, Blasphemers should be put to death, female adulterers should be put to death, male homosexuals should be put to death, alcoholics should be put to death, disobedient slaves should be put to death…
So how exactly do you rationalise the Church should follow ONE passage from Leviticus, but not all the others from the same book?
And to end with your logical fallacy, sorry, but it is just that. The murder of Ms. Brucia is not morally equivalent to the execution of her murderer. That is the foundational premise of your entire argument, yes?
Not only is this NOT the foundational premise of my entire argument, its not even MY argument, its YOURS!
I only made this comment because YOU claimed in your last post we should execute the man because: (I quote your words)
“why it is brutal and absolutist for me to say that we ought to now refuse to acknowledge his right to live? Sorry, friend, but the standard we are applying is his, and not ours. (…)All that I am asking is that we allow his measure of justice to be applied to him.”
To which I responded we cannot act the same way he acted as a state… Your answer to my argument, was this odd bit of self-contradiction above… The ‘wholly absurd and ridiculous attempt at moral equivalence’ (your words) is entirely yours, as are the remainder of the self-contradictions and blanket assertions I have listed here at length.Part Two: Dealing with the arguments:
Oh, but you didn’t bother did you? I must have quoted your previous post a dozen times, and made a half dozen arguments, but you ignored every one of them and argued nothing but religion.
In response to that, please go back and re-read, from the end of my post two ago: “Why religion has no place in these debates”
You brought religion into the debate, and strangled the issue in an otherwise interesting thread… somewhat sad really…