It could be the start of a groan-worthy joke.
A Catholic priest, a rabbi, an Episcopal rector, a Methodist minister and a Lutheran pastor sit down for some interfaith dialogue.
But yesterday at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in East Liberty, there was no joking about the discussion topic, the death penalty.
The Judeo-Christian religions have come a long way from the Old Testament notion of an eye for an eye, the panelists said. Representatives of the five religions said their churches have officially come out strongly against America’s use of the death penalty.
I am strongly opposed to the death penalty on biblical and philosophical grounds, but…
Tomorrow night, John Muhammad is scheduled to be executed and I can not think of any other punishment that is fitting. Perhaps one had to live here at that time to understand of the terror he unleashed.
An addendum to my note above – I just want to say to those of you who believe the Noahic covenant (or Noahide laws) require the death penalty (Gen. 9:5-6) — while we disagree, I do have an emotive understanding of your position. You won’t find me burning candles at midnight. This is a very difficult issue and I think we should recognize whatever side of the divide we fall on, our brother or sister on the other side may have an equally compelling argument.
how about a discussion on abortion (where the individual has committed no crime)? that would have been more interesting…
Chris, 3, Can you think of anything to say on the issue of abortion that has not been said previously?
Ditto to capital punishment, but, on topic – Do those who oppose capital punishment believe that the state does not have the right to impose it? Even if wildly unpopular?
Was there only one perspective/side represented? At the risk of sounding as if I support the death penalty, wasn’t there ANYONE who could speak cogently in its defense?
#4. off2 wrote, in relevant part,
[blockquote]Do those who oppose capital punishment believe that the state does not have the right to impose it? Even if wildly unpopular? [/blockquote]
I respectfully believe the better question is who (or what) gives a people the right to deprive another person of life?
6. William P. Sulik, Immemorial custom? Answer given from a legal, precedential, not a moral, pov.
[blockquote]3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ~Romans 13 [/blockquote]
The death penalty is, IMHO supported in this passage. Note the following:
1. The writer, Paul, was intimately familiar with the use of the death penalty and also it’s misuse. Yet, his familiarity did not lead him to speak against it, nor was he commanded by God (after all, Paul was an Apostle) to speak against it.
2. Paul identifies the sword bearer as “God’s servant, an agent of wrath” whose God given purpose is “to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”. Note, his purpose is not to rehabilitate. This is about justice, wrongdoers, wrath and punishment. This is part of the cannon of Holy Scripture and the New Testament, and no amount of rhetorical dancing will remove or alter that fact.
3. The power of the sword is inherently the power of death and those that do wrong should be in “terror” of it. Those that argue against the death penalty are IMHO arguing that God’s servant is carrying the sword for nothing, contrary to the above scripture.
I believe that those that refuse the death penalty for murderers are denying justice to the victims and to their families. To deny justice is to oppress, and in this case, those that are being oppressed are also the families of the victims of cruelty, and often most heinous crimes. (Rape murder of a 4 year old child…torture murder of anyone, etc.)
I would also point out that God is the same God in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament and that one cannot be logically consistent by saying, “Oh well, that was just the Old Testament way; we are much more enlightened now.” That does not hold water, nor should it.
Ultimately, the power of life and death are in God’s hands anyway, as evidenced by Jesus telling Pilate that he didn’t really hold authority over Him, but that His Father was in control. This also correlates with Paul’s assertion that the one in authority is actually God’s servant, despite appearances. Either God is God and is in control, or He isn’t. (Not to suggest that there isn’t room for discussion about fighting tyranny and injustice by governments. But that is an entirely different discussion.)
BTW, the death penalty does not increase death. We are all going to die. This is essentially a debate about who goes first, and for my part, I wish to send those that misbehave very badly to the front of the line where they can cause the least pain to the rest of us in the queue.
In Paul’s time, the death penalty was widely and often arbitrarily dispensed by state authorities. That Paul would show awareness of this reality of the trappings of government in his day is not, in my view, a theological endorsement of capital punishment in our day. Christians, of all people, have deep-rooted reasons to be wary of state power used to take earthly lives.
Having said that, Mr. Sulik’s comments nos. 1, 2, and 6 strike me as very fair and appropriate. It is a difficult subject made more so in the context of examples of truly random evil. One of the sniper murders took place at our local Home Depot and several were within a 15-mile radius of here. I guess, on balance, I am more comfortable with putting John Muhammad away in a prison until God chooses to terminate his existence here, than I am deputizing my agent (through the state) to terminate him. However, if I had seen him in the act, I would have not hesitated to kill him on the spot with confidence that I could justify that taking of life at Judgment.
I read 8 and 9’s comments earlier, but didn’t have an opportunity to respond. I thank both. I am very familiar with the arguments set forth in #8 and am generally in agreement although I do think that Calvary and the Resurrection changed things. I would like to offer this comment from Prof. Rick Garnett:
[blockquote]For me, two lines of thought do most of the work. (I think I owe both of them to Cardinal Dulles, but I might have him wrong): First, opposition to capital punishment expresses my commitment to the idea that the modern state is not absolute, though it has troubling pretensions to absolute-ness; second, a society that manages to restrain itself from imposing capital punishment might turn out to be (though, it is far from clear that it will in fact turn out to be) more pro-life generally; a society that is able to say “we will not execute, though we could, and though we would gain some benefits from doing so, even a duly convicted murderer” might also manage to say “we will not indulge the pernicious idea that some people have a fundamental moral right to cause the deaths of other vulnerable people who depend on them, just because it seems beneficial to do so.”[/blockquote]
from here: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/11/more-on-john-muhammads-execution.html