A Wiccan widow is fighting for the right to place a Wiccan symbol on her veteran husband’s tombstone.
Sam sent me this story earlier this month, but with work and Thanksgiving I have not had a chance to post on it.
I can partly see a point by the government. You don’t want to open up to any and every symbol. And before you say, “Yes you do” – do you want to see a Nazi symbol set up or how about a burning cross?
There should be some line that prevents offensive symbols from being placed on tombstones regardless of the affiliation of the deceased veteran.
Having said that, the Wiccan symbol is not one of those. If a soldier followed Wicca, let them put that symbol over their grave.
This is again an issue of the government being able to recognize a religion without endorsing it. Having a cross on federal property does not make that land or our government Christian. Neither does having a Wiccan pentacle on a tombstone mean anything more than the deceased followed that religion.
When in doubt the government should allow religious expression. More freedom is almost always a good thing.
Here is a website with all the emblems approved by the U.S. army to be placed on military gravestones.
I personally would choose the “HUMANIST EMBLEM OF SPIRIT” and I would want this carved on my gravestone:
Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem loquacious to you.
More freedom is almost always a good thing.
What would the world be like if you actually believed that Aaron? Still, I endorse your position, although I note that there is a difference between Wiccas and Nazis, one being political, the other being spiritual, although both are a choice. Just like Christianity. Still, you're correct that she should be allowed to Wicca it up.
Yeah Aaron, I know you don't ACTUALLY believe that. You believe exactly what the theocratic hate-monger <s>demon</s> stereotype in Sam's head believes!
I think that some symbols ought to be outlawed – the swastika for sure. But what about the pentagram, the upside-down cross, the sickle and hammer, the star and crescent, or the KKK symbol?
Isn't a swastika an inverted symbol from Hinduism? Also, Seeker, Aaron clearly doesn't believe that more freedom is a good thing. Go back and look at the MAJORITY of the positions that he's taken. I'm just pointing out facts. This has nothing to do with any alleged stereotype or demons or whatever. It's true. You're the same way: you believe that freedom is too precious to simply go giving to people, particularly if that freedom might someday affect society.
You act like I'm making stuff up, when in fact I'm simply presenting the facts.
Also, your linethrough feature is BROKEN.
My epitaph?-
"Not to be born surpasses all reckoning. The next best thing by far, when one has been born is to go back as swiftly as possible whence one came." Sophocles
Sam, I do believe in more freedom being a good thing, but I did say "almost always." Just like you I do believe that some limits to freedom are a worthwhile thing. Citizens should not be "free" to do everythng they desire. I would like to maximize the freedoms as much as possible.
I am curious as to what the majority of positions I have taken that is limiting to freedom. I am sure you will say gay marriage, although I have not taken a completely solid stance on that from a government standpoint. I'm guessing you will say abortion, but again I view that from your standard of not allowing one person to harm another.
I would say that you also take positions that are against freedom. You want to impose a federal government mandated wage on businesses, not allowing them and the market to establish wages. There are other areas where you want government to step in, most are simply different than mine. So don't feel too high and mighty about allowing freedoms. Again, we agree in principle that more freedom is a good thing, we just disagree about where those freedoms should be expanded.
Cineaste, I find it sad that you would choose to communicate that on your tombstone. For starters, how do you know that you have spoken honestly to the "traveler?" When you are dead you will discover (or not as the case may be) what the truth is, but your tombstone could lie in direct contrast to what you discover.
But if you are wrong, you are not helping people. You may have dimissed religion and the Christian God. I hope you will reconsider one day, but that is your choice. What you don't have is complete knowledge of what happens after death.
You may be right, we may just die and rot. If that is the case, what is the harm in my belief in God? But what if I am right and you discover that after you die, then you will have placed a lie on your tombstone – one that could have a negative impact on others and will have a negative impact on you.
While you view the elimination of an afterlife as telling people there is no Santa Claus, I view it as refusing to tell people that a bridge is out ahead. Because you don't believe that the bridge is out, you encourage others to drive along as if nothing will happen. But you may discover the actual truth too late. I was driving the same way, but someone told me about the bridge, I believed them, investigated it myself as much as possible and now try to get others to avoid a negative consequence that awaits them if they continue on their same path.
I understand that you are atheistic toward God (my God), but that doesn't change my beliefs. But logic dictates that there is no need for numerous gods, but there is a need for something to be supernatural, something must predate the beginning. Either you believe that nature was somehow at some point supernatural or you believe there is something else that exists outside of nature. That is your choice, logic for me illustrates that nature could not be supernatural and that nothing in nature or logic excludes God.
But what if I am right and you discover that after you die, then you will have placed a lie on your tombstone – one that could have a negative impact on others and will have a negative impact on you.
Aaron, there are two sides of that coin. It could also be that it is you who are wrong and placing the Christian cross on your tombstone is a falsehood or, using your own language, a "lie." When you say "will" have a negative impact on me, I contend claiming this is arrogant. You can't tell me how God will judge.
I view it as refusing to tell people that a bridge is out ahead. Because you don't believe that the bridge is out, you encourage others to drive along as if nothing will happen. But you may discover the actual truth too late. I was driving the same way, but someone told me about the bridge, I believed them, investigated it myself as much as possible and now try to get others to avoid a negative consequence that awaits them if they continue on their same path.
I think this analogy should be reversed. It is you who are telling people that the bridge is there (heaven) and it is I who am telling them that the bridge is out (oblivion). It is actually you who encourage people to drive on oblivious to the danger and it is I who try to warn them. If I am wrong and the bridge is actually there, fine they still go to heaven. But if I am right and the bridge is out, then those people will have lived their lives with a false hope, perhaps not living as fully as they could have had they been more skeptical.
Let me explain in detail. If your doctor told you that you have about one month left to live, would you live your last month any differently than normal? For example, would you go to work for that last month or would you spend all your remaining time with your family and try to experience as much as you could in your alloted 30 days. I think that you would do as I would in your last month and try to savor life more. This is an atheist perspective. Live life as fully as you can in your alloted time because when life is over, it's really over. Those who believe in heaven, nirvana, paradise, etc are really in a bad situation because it's as if the doctor didn't tell them they will die in about a month. The doctor withheld the truth so that they would be comforted and not worry about death and the end. The problem is, these people will live out their last month on Earth by going to work and going through their normal routine. They remain oblivious to the urgency to live fully because they are blissfully ignorant in the belief they will live forever. They believe your metaphorical bridge to heaven exists while I tell them the bridge is out. The words of my epitaph, "I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler, Lest even while dead I seem loquacious to you" urges them not to waste time but to live life fully before they die.
But logic dictates that there is no need for numerous gods, but there is a need for something to be supernatural, something must predate the beginning.
Can you elaborate on this logic? Is it supported by anything other than the Bible or Koran?
I contend that we are both vegetarians. I just eat one less meat than you do. When you understand why you don't eat all other meats, you will understand why I don't eat your meat.
Sooooo, if I eat one meat, I'm still a vegetarian?
This is Cineaste/Stephen F. Roberts' argument.
The point is that belief in only one instance of a class/category, and not all, does not invalidate the entire belief class.
Aaron?
Cineaste, it is clear you do not understand the Christian perspective or at least your answer causes me to question whether you do.
If I'm wrong then it may well be a lie on my tombstone. I have said that, yet you seem offended somehow that I hold you to the same standard. You also call me "arrogant" for saying that I believe what my religion teaches. If you don't believe in God (or at least the Christian God) why do you care that I say He will judge those who do not have a relationship with Him through Jesus.
From my standpoint it is "arrogant' to think that you (or I) can tell God how He can or cannot judge people. If God has established that the only way for people to achieve heaven and a relationship with Him is through Jesus, then I have no right to tell Him He must do otherwise.
What danger is there in living a Christian live with no heaven after it? I avoid many of the pitfalls of immoral behavior and I love my wife, my family and others more than myself, how is that such a horrible thing?
Your analogy to the doctor is why I say you must not understand the Christian life. We do not believe that we can simply do whatever on this life because we have eternity to do differently or better. The Christian perspective is that God has given you this one life to serve Him here on earth – you only get one shot at that so make it count. Heaven is a completely different experience and one where we do not have the opportunity to do many of the things we do here (I can explain this more if you would like). The existence of Heaven or an afterlife does not negate the importance of this life, in fact according to the Christian perspective this life is all the more important because your choices here are reflected eternally not just until you die. That should cause people to value this life even more, not less.
I will be glad to explain the logic behind not needing many gods, but needing something eternal and yes, of course, I have more than statements in the Bible or any other religious writing. In fact, I will make the entire arguement without resorting to those. This, however, is a topic fit for a post not a comment, so you will have to wait unti tomorrow for that response.
I have said that, yet you seem offended somehow that I hold you to the same standard.
I swear have not been offended in this discussion at all. I am enjoying this one because there is actual communication between us. The Atheist post by Seeker has regressed into rhetoric, as usual, and it's gotten tedious there.
If you don't believe in God (or at least the Christian God) why do you care that I say He will judge those who do not have a relationship with Him through Jesus.
I don't care what happens after death because it's all oblivion. I do care that people are living with false hope in the here and now, when it really counts.
From my standpoint it is "arrogant' to think that you (or I) can tell God how He can or cannot judge people. If God has established that the only way for people to achieve heaven and a relationship with Him is through Jesus.
I see the problem. In your first sentence you say it "arrogant" to think we can know how God judges people. Then in the same breath, you assert God has established a way people can get to heaven, i.e you do X and God will judge you worthy of heaven. X is a variable regarding Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindu's, etc, etc, etc. This is what makes religions arrogant. Religions think "their way" is the only true way to get to heaven when the reality is, if God exists, only He will be the judge.
I avoid many of the pitfalls of immoral behavior and I love my wife, my family and others more than myself, how is that such a horrible thing?
I do the same thing but what is horrible is that you think that without your religion you would spiral into a cesspool of moral depravity. It is not true. Morality does not come from religion.
The existence of Heaven or an afterlife does not negate the importance of this life, in fact according to the Christian perspective this life is all the more important because your choices here are reflected eternally not just until you die. That should cause people to value this life even more, not less.
I don't think this is true because if people are already sure in their own minds that they are going to eternal heaven, why should they care about this life? When an atheist gets cancer they know they will die and it's over. But if a Calvinist gets cancer they KNOW if they die they will go to heaven. All that needs to be done is accept Jesus. It's like so what, if I die then so be it, I'll be in a better place anyway and I can take comfort in the fact that I get to see all my friends and family. Religion is selling comfort that they can't possibly know is really there after death.
This, however, is a topic fit for a post not a comment, so you will have to wait unti tomorrow for that response.
Sounds good. I have been lobbying Seeker to make a post about where morality comes from for a long time so that we could discuss it. I have found so many programs on this subject.
While it would be arrogant for me to think that I can tell God how He can judge, it would be foolish for me to ignore what God has said on how He will judge. That's not arrogance, not acknowledgement.
The form of arrogance in the sense of "I know what is going to happen after death" in inherant in every belief sytem. You have the same "arrogance" in your worldview. You claim to know exactly what will happen, without ever experiencing it yourself.
I never said that without my faith I would "spiral into a cesspool of moral depravity." I think each of us has morality somewhat built into us by God, which allows everyone to essentially know or at least have the ability to know right and wrong. I think religion can help and most often does help improve morality.
I do not believe that only relgious people are moral. Many people have an inborn character toward morality. I am one of those people. I do not want to do things that will displease people, so I tend toward a "moral" lifestyle. I think a bigger test of a philosophy or religion is the change that takes place within a person when they begin to follow that. A person who is already moral will not make a huge change regardless of what religion they choose to follow.
I also believe that "morality" is a hinderance to Heaven. There will be many good, moral people who do not make it to Heaven. While many "immoral" people will.
Again, as I said before for Christians the afterlife spurs us on do even better and value this life even more.
I may post something on morality as well, but my main priority will be the many gods vs. one God vs. none thing.
For the record, I have no idea what happens after we die. Which is why I'll worry about it after I'm dead. Seeker/Aaron, the issue isn't that we're both opposed to the spread of freedom. The issue is that, the two of you to varying degrees, oppose individual freedom. I think there is a vast distinction between market freedom and what I do within the confines of my own home.
The both of you have, at times, defended the right of the government to legislate my actions, even if my actions affect/hurt/impact nobody else. I draw the line at that. I know better than anybody what I am, and am not, capable of. The government? It most certainly does not know better.
You have the same "arrogance" in your worldview. You claim to know exactly what will happen, without ever experiencing it yourself.
I don't need to die to claim that death is permanent. It is wishful thinking to assert there is life after death. It is not wishful thinking to assert there is nothing after death.
I think each of us has morality somewhat built into us by God, which allows everyone to essentially know or at least have the ability to know right and wrong…
I do not believe that only religious people are moral. Many people have an inborn character toward morality. I am one of those people.
Well, this is a far cry from what Seeker has been spouting in the other thread.
"It (atheism) gives all moral authority over to man's reason, and in so doing, gives ultimate power to mankind to determine right and wrong. And giving man ultimate power leads inevitably to corruption." – Seeker
At least you two aren't lock-step on everything.
There will be many good, moral people who do not make it to Heaven. While many "immoral" people will.
Okay, this one is hard for me to swallow. In your opinion, is this justice? This seems very unjust to me. So, if God actually said this is true in scripture, he would be an unjust God by human standards of morality. If you say God's justice is different, that raises the question of a double standard for justice. Very, very bad.
Again, as I said before for Christians the afterlife spurs us on do even better and value this life even more.
And again Aaron, if one already KNOWS he/she is predestined for heaven, why bother?
It is very simple.
In order to show His mercy, God has made the way of salvation available to all. Justice was done in that Jesus was punished for the sins of all. However, in order to take advantage of it, you have to admit your own guilt and believe that He was killed in your place.
This gives hope to the murderer, but is bad news for the self righteous who think that their efforts can earn the gift that God has given.
The justice is that those too proud or self-righteous to accept God's gift are left out, while those humble enough to admit their guilt are given a free pass – but not without justice, because Jesus paid.
Now, that does not mean that one can merely "accept Jesus" and then continue to live like hell. In fact, both the Apostle Paul and James, not to mention John (see This is the message, God is light) confirm that true faith creates a new and changed life that manifests itself in a zeal for doing right, and real internal changes, including good works. If you lack that, you are probably not really "saved" at all.
This plan involves both mercy and justice. If the moral people got by on their good works, that might be just, but according to scripture, our works of righteousness are filthy rags compared to the righteousness of God, and so all are guilty.
God does not discourage those who are already doing good without faith. Rather, he encourages a right motive, a right perspective on their righteousness (not so good compared to God), and calls them to a higher life than mere self-directed goodness.
Seeker, that's all well and good and I recognize the intent, but that post sounds like it was taken directly from the Protestant recruiting book. Am I the only Catholic on this blog? I feel alone when I stick up for their viewpoints but I think they would disagree with you. They have a different way to achieve salvation. And regardless of the Catholics, your post didn't really answer any of my questions to Aaron. This may be intentional because you don't want to intrude upon the conversation but I would like to know what you personally think, not what scripture tells you. For example, it seems you and Aaron have different views on where human morality comes from.
A lot of times I see the Christian right railing against atheists yet, even though they are only what 10% of the American population, they contribute a lot. Did you know Pat Tillman was an atheist? Angelina Jolie? Lance Armstrong? I mean these are people of strong moral convictions without religion. Yes, there are bad atheists too as well as bad Christians but they should all be judged on their actions, not on if they accept Jesus as savior. You see, as atheists they have problems accepting miracles and the supernatural on faith. This makes perfect sense. You are skeptical about Allah even though He has as much validity as the Christian God.
You know what a true miracle is? Something that can't possibly happen like an amputee growing her limbs back without any medical assistance. Atheists are rightly skeptical of miraculous claims and the bible is chock full of them. There is also a scientific experiment that can be conducted by anyone that proves there is no Christian God. Sorry, I am digressing.
I don't think seeker and I disagree per se on the source of morality. I think we both agree that morality comes from God. We may have differing opinions on how people can be moral depending on their relationship with God, but it is really a minor issue.
As far as us two walking "in lock step," you have been around long enough to know that is not the case Cineaste. We have varying degrees of disagreement on abortion, illegal immigration, this morality question and others. Just as it is silly for many Christians to speak of the "gay agenda" as if every gay person was working together in some fashion, it is silly to assume that every right leaning Evangelical agrees on everything.
I will answer your questions and try to get to the promised post on God, but first I must go get some lunch and work a little. They do pay me afterall. If only blogging would pay!
Morality comes from God? With all due respect, I was the social worker here. My morality is just as upstanding as either of yours, yet you're claiming that yours are the only ones that count?
but that post sounds like it was taken directly from the Protestant recruiting book. Am I the only Catholic on this blog? I feel alone when I stick up for their viewpoints but I think they would disagree with you. They have a different way to achieve salvation.
I was not addressing the origin of morality question. I was merely addressing the accusation of injustice in God not accepting the works of "good men."
Regarding the origin of morality, I still don't understand the question. But I would also take a classic biblical protestant position on it, which makes sense to me. I have not studied this, but the general answers are:
1. God has given man a conscience, which gives us a rudimentary source of morality – not an absolute source, but consider it the "organ" of morality. Biblically speaking, this organ is supposed to be trained to reflect the absolute morals that exist for mankind in natural law – things like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and "thou shalt not commit adultery." However, it can be either overly sensitive (the bible calls this a weak conscience, convicting us of things that aren't really harmful, like women wearing pants), or overly dull (the bible calls this a "seared" conscience, failing to convict us of things that are harmful.
Beyond this, I haven't developed much of a theology of the origins or morality, but I am a fan of Kohlberg
Regarding the morality and contributions of atheists, I think this is a special subject that deserves more attention. Why is it that most atheists don't give in to the totalitarian tendencies that my analysis of atheism demands? Why is it that atheists often seem to have a high ethic? I believe that there are answers to these, but still, I hold that atheism is a flawed ideology. The short answers are:
– most atheists are idealists who have abandoned faith because of religious abuse or the abuse of superstition. Being idealists, they do want to do good and protect humanity. They feel that we can only rely on reason.
– the problem is that, having thrown out the god with the bathwater, they unwittingly are now serving a model that does not reflect reality, the reality of the spiritual world, man's spiritual need, and the existence of God. This flawed system always leads to tyranny, as I argued, even though atheists like Karl Marx meant well.
– most idealists are also intelligent (?)
– anyone can seem nice until they are put into power. Without the balance of faith, atheists fall into the corruption that we all do – in fact, I think that in some sense, secularism and a sustained appeal to reason can keep religious authorities from falling into the same trap – which brings up the question, if they have God in their camp, why is that not enough to keep them from corruption?
Uh oh, just argued myself into a corner. Have fun, we'll have to think about this one.
Sam said: The both of you have, at times, defended the right of the government to legislate my actions, even if my actions affect/hurt/impact nobody else. I draw the line at that. I know better than anybody what I am, and am not, capable of. The government? It most certainly does not know better.
Then why make any laws? Are you arguing for anarchy?
And I think you haven't got a clue what you may do when you are drinking, including how much more drinking you will do once you start. So I think it is a very good thing to legislate what you should not do while drinking. Even if you are in your own home.
(Like for instance abusing your kids. I'd say that happens in homes, wouldn't you? And from the stats, I'd say it happens when parents have been drinking more often than not.)
But I meant to tell you what I want on my tombstone!
I want it to say
"Loving wife, daughter, friend, and especially mother to those who brought her great joy"
Or, you know, something along those lines.
That line you draw Sam gets blurry when it comes to abortion or the financial health of small business owners who you feel the government should force to pay higher wages. I can't remember what your position on gun control is.
Again, you want to limit freedom as well, just in different areas. You feel passionately about several issues and feel my (or seeker's) stance in those areas trump everything else and therefore we are against freedom. I feel passionately that an unborn child should have the freedom to pursue life, liberty…. Does that give me the right to say you are anti-freedom or even anti-life?
Aaron,
I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between gun control and car control via licensing, but if a difference exists, lets err on the side of individual freedom, okay? As for the issue of minimum wages, I suppose I'll agree, except that the minimum wage is an across the board rule, affecting anybody that wants to have employees. Whereas the marriage laws in this country explicity mandate unequal treatment. I think those are two very different ideas.
Finally, you and Seeker regularly suggest that I am anti-life. I believe in contraception, and I take a pro-choice position, because I'm not comfortable telling a woman what to do with her own body. You guys long ago got over that authoritarian impulse.
It is the woman who thinks she can destroy a life who has the authoritarian impulse. My only concern is that she let the baby live, not telling her what to do.
So it would be okay if the government said no one could get married or everyone had to get married as long as it was "equal" – that is the argument?
Again, the marriage laws in this country simply recognize what is already in existence. Just as the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it recognizes that they already exist. Marriage exists outside the federal government and cannot be controlled by it.
If they want to make up their own institution, then techincally they could do whatever they wanted to with it. But the recognition of an institution that predates the country is not the same as the nation taking a freedom away.
You're not making sense anymore.
My only concern is that she let the baby live, not telling her what to do.
Except that you're telling her in every instance to have the baby, and rather than convincing her that you're right, you're going to change the law so that she has to do what you say.
So it would be okay if the government said no one could get married or everyone had to get married as long as it was "equal" – that is the argument?
What? I'm arguing that marriage ought to be available to gays as well as straights. That's what I've always argued. I'm not saying the government should take it away, nor am I sure where you're getting that. I'm saying that the government should extend equal marriage rights to gay citizens.
Again, the marriage laws in this country simply recognize what is already in existence. Just as the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it recognizes that they already exist. Marriage exists outside the federal government and cannot be controlled by it.
What? You've advocated on several occaisons using the government control marriage. In fact, that's what you're side is advocating as we speak. What on Earth are you talking about?
If they want to make up their own institution, then techincally they could do whatever they wanted to with it. But the recognition of an institution that predates the country is not the same as the nation taking a freedom away.
The issue isn't gays getting together and creating "Parrots" which is exactly like "Marriage" except that it's called "Parrots." Is that "Parrots" would be legally recognized by the government, thus offering equal protection to gay citizens.
My point about no marriage was that you said it had to be "equal." So if the government did like I do sometimes when my boys are fighting over a toy and said, "Okay you two want to fight about it, fine. I'm taking away marriage recognition from everyone." You would be fine with that because it was "equal?"
My point is that the government right now merely recognizes the institution of marriage as what it is – a union between a man and a woman. The US Constitution did not create the right for free speech, they merely recognized that we humans posses that right inherently.
The same with marriage. They did not creat marriage for our country, they recognized the institution that was already in existence before the founding of our country. Therefore, if they didn't create it, but merely recognize it, they can't change what it is.
Again, they can create an institution which offers rights and recognition to whoever they want, if they so please, but they cannot take marriage and make it say what they feel it should say. Just as I can't take blue and make it mean red. I didn't create blue, so I can't change what it means. But if I created an entirely new thing, I can make it mean what I want.
(I hope this is coming out right, though I'm guessing it isn't.)
Except that you're telling her in every instance to have the baby, and rather than convincing her that you're right, you're going to change the law so that she has to do what you say.
No, we are saying that the woman's rights are limited by the rights of the child. She can not kill the child to "solve" her problem, which in the majority of the cases, SHE caused by enjoying sex (which was intended to be inextricably enjoyed within marriage, with the bonus of perhaps getting a wonderful child).
She already had limited rights, and we are enforcing them, because your argument boils down to "since she is more powerful, and the baby is out of sight and totally dependent upon her body for sustenance, she should have the right to kill the unborn child."
We call foul on that. YOU are willing to take away her freedom to kill the child the minute after it's born, but cry foul when we want to protect the child earlier? Not only is your accusation of our position as "taking away freedom" hypocritical (because you do the same right after the child is born), but it fails to protect the weak and innocent, a principle which Christians hold dear.
BTW, here's what I would like on my tombstone:
1965-2070
Loving husband and father, able teacher, preacher of righteousness, compassionate servant, saved by grace. His one regret, that he had lived less worldly, less angry, and more fully for Jesus. His one wish, that he could see his children and their children walking in the truth.
Seeker,
If you genuinely believed that the innocent should be protected, you'd oppose the death penalty, as innocents have almost certainly been put to death. But of course, you define innocents very, very carefully, so that your bloodlust for the gallows can be quenched. Don't lecture me about life, and how much you care about it, at least until you're willing to be consistent.
you'd oppose the death penalty, as innocents have almost certainly been put to death. But of course, you define innocents very, very carefully, so that your bloodlust for the gallows can be quenched.
I am on the fence about the death penalty, having to balance the killing of innocents with a just punishment for the guilty. Of course, NONE of the unborn are guilty, so that is a no brainer.
Do you believe that guys like Manson should get life in prison? How about if they murdered your family?
Seeker,
The Amish donated money to the family of the man that killed their children. Isn't that a far more Christian act than lusting for blood? If Manson killed my family, I'd want him to die, painfully, and for a long, long time. But I'm not comfortable being like Manson, so I oppose the death penalty.
There is a difference between the desire for revenge and for justice. This is why scripture prohibits vigilante justice, but calls for civic justice. If justice is not done, people become unrestrained in doing evil.
While many people may have mixed motives when it comes to the punishment of criminals, esp. if they are the victims, forgiving on a personal level, while also wanting to see justice done, are compatible.
I didn't answer your question well, but basically what I am saying is that:
1. what the Amish did is awesome and christlike
2. this approach to those who do evil, while required on a personal level for Christians, is not to be translated into civil justice. "Turn the other cheek" and "do good to those who hate and persecute you" are meant for personal conduct. In other passages, it is clear that in matters of civil justice, scripture warns that if we do not punish wrongdoing, it will lead to chaos in society.
In fact, it is unkind to the victims NOT to prosecute and sentence criminals. Again, the desire for revenge may be a sin, but the desire to see justice established in society is not, even if some people want to see "justice" because they really want revenge.
Seeker,
Do you really think that people don't murder other people because the law compels them not to do so? I wholly disagree, but perhaps that would make for an interesting discussion: maybe this explains, in part, our differing beliefs on any number of subjects.
As to your second post, isn't the pursuit of revenge capable of badly perverting our notions of justice? In other words, does our desire for revenge cloud our ability to interpret what is, and what isn't, justice?
Do you really think that people don't murder other people because the law compels them not to do so? I wholly disagree
I believe that the deterrent effect of the law is well established. I mean, just look at what happens when civil law breaks down – looting.
isn't the pursuit of revenge capable of badly perverting our notions of justice?
I suppose it could. But that doesn't mean we can't choose just punishments that fit the crime.
If anyone remembers, I would like to have this read at my funeral, eventually…