h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As to whether Jesus existed or not, as I understand it there is about as much documentary evidence to support his having lived and had his ministry pretty much as we understand it, as to support the existence of Julius Caesar. Considerably more evidence than that of the existence of Homer (the Greek, not Bart Simpson's dad).

I found this interesting

>Perhaps "Dubyah" should check his WWJD bracelet before he orders the next execution in Texas.<

Governors don't order executions. Distirict attorneys decide to pursue the death penalty, and the jury decides if death is appropriate. Then the case is reviewed by the courts. The governor of Texas doesn't even have the power to commute the death penalty. He had no say in the matter.

I'm getting a little concerned about christians. They seem to have lost their ability to judge. Thank god their are athiests out there, like me, to do it for you.

"Man has never created a god better than himself." - Robert Heinlein

My earlier question about the Catholic Church's viewpoint was asked as a point which came to mind after reading the forums on the death penalty. I would just be interested to know where they stand, or do we take it that the Pope's opinion is also that of the whole church, regardless of historical interpretation?

For me, Christianity is too hypocritcal to be acceptable. I cannot decide whether I believe in one 'God' person or not, but religions are very much man-made and man-interpreted, and subject to the faults, miscomprehensions and deliberate manipulation that are inherently 'human'.

As someone said earlier, 'Christians' often behave in a manner which is not wholly consistent with the teachings of the New Testament. Personally, I try to live in a 'Christian' way, in that I behave in a way which I feel is 'right', and try to 'live and let live', though surviving in the modern 'dog eat dog' world can be increasingly difficult.

~A~

Perhaps we haven't so much lost the ability to judge, as gained the ability not to.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'judge'.

~A~

I was pretty much talking Old Testament sense.

This much is obvious - most of the policies of the religious right in the USA are old-testament in origin, and in fact completely ignore the fundamental difference between the old and the new testaments, i.e. Jesus.

The "moral majority" is far closer to Jewish theology than Christian in this respect. Remember the parable of the adulterous woman?

EVILWOMBAT:
>Therefore Christianity fails because the world isn't ideal? More likely it fails because it is a faulty
belief system created by faulty humans. The fact is, the bible advocates all kinds of wacky scary
stuff, mass religions tend to pit people against each other- believers vs. nonbelievers, and large
organized churches are inherently corrupt. Therefore I reject the premise that the "chrisitian" part of
humans are perfect. Side note:
Personally, I feel the bible is bad when it says I'm going to suffer eternal pain because I'm an
unbeliever - also an integral tenet of Christianity, I believe.<

I didn't read the rest, but I want to say something about this...

Aren't /good/ non-believers sent to Limbo (where the only thing they suffer is having no hope)? At least that is what I think the Catholic Church says, but I might be wrong.

I believe the point of Christianity is supposed to be (to say nothing of how it is acted out by individuals) love everybody. And when you love everybody, you're going to want to show them the way to achieve eternal life, which you know, because you don't want to see someone you love suffer for eternity and because you want to spend eternity with everyone you love. That's where conversion comes in.

And while it seems so painfully obvious to most of us, there are actually a number of people who don't believe that people should be nice to each other. If everyone did believe that, we wouldn't be having a conversation about the Death Penalty, now would we? Whether Christianity succeeds at helping people recognize the value in being peaceful and loving is arguable, but it does seem pretty clear that that's the primary part of Jesus' message as it's come down to us.

I'm just stabbing in the dark here, but it seems like most organized religions are set up to keep a work force in order, not to keep their morals high. I mean it's all well and good that christianity says love thy neighbour, but the guys in charge will tell you to go and fight the terrible non believers not just because they don't believe but also because it keeps the peasents from fighting the man (in power I mean). Keeping people united, whether through religion, racism, or any other organization is the key to making capitalism run smoothly.
Also, if the whole country had been one religion (jewish) the capitalists would have had harder time keeping them from forming some early kind of workers union, where as if they all believe in something differant they'll keep making the widgets you need and never talk to one another.
People being nice to eachother would be great, and I can see where the apeal lies in capital punishment, but the differance between crime rates in CP countries VS non CP countries is not that big (I hope...). As they said in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure: "Be excellent to each other".

Yah! Universal message of love and socialism!

Hello, I discovered this while looking for something else. I am a Christian, and I *fervently* oppose the death penalty/capital punishment. I have written a Guide Entry about it, which was also in the Post in 2001. I believe the US Catholic Bishops are strongly in opposition. (See someone's question just below the posting to which I am replying.

Mustang Sally, as far as I know, they're agin it. (CP that is.)

<>
Opposing them, including the most recent (the invasion of Iraq.)

A couple of points.

Firstly, the original text of the bible is better translated as "thou shalt not commit murder" than "thou shalt not kill". Apparently unlawful killing is wrong, but lawful killing is OK.

Secondly, why not just think of capital punishment as "Democratic Justice" - One man, one rock! When the majority of people (of whatever religious persuasion) in a democracy oppose capital punishment, they elect a government that will abolish it. Until then ...

The latter consideration would suggest that the answer to your question is "Apparently not." A clear majority of the good citizens of Texas, for example, call themselves Christians and support capital punishment.

Democracy huh! I'm with Churchill on that one. Democracy is a terrible system. It's just better than any of the others that we have tried.

<>

One problem, SempaiScuba, is that there is little or no justice in the way that capital punishment is applied in the USA. Only about 1% of 'murderers' are sentenced to death, and the recent exoneration of 100s of them show just how badly unjust the system is.

<>

But this just raises the classic question "What is justice?". My point here was that in a democracy the views of the majority of citizens dictate whether or not capital punishment is used (and, by extension, if it is used, how it is applied).

If the people in a democracy elect governments/officials who stand on a platform supporting capital punishment, then one can only conclude that the majority of those people feel that the death penalty is a "just punishment".

If capital punishment is legal, then the executions are not unlawful and the biblical injunction "thou shalt not commit murder" doesn't apply.

Personally, I have to admit to feeling somewhat ambivalent about capital punishment. On the one hand I hear the details of some cases and think "he/she should be strung up" (or occasionally something rather more medieval than simply stringing them up). But then I remember the wise words of Gandalf in the mines of Moria:

"Deserves death? Maybe he does. Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so hasty to give out death in judgement." (This may not be an exact quote, but the sense of it is correct).

<.

I can't help thinking that if the majority of people who have elected a pro-capital punishment government, knew more about the issue, and the way it's practiced, they wouldn't support it! (Some would, but not the majority.) Also, was there any opposing death penalty candidate they *could* have voted for?

<>

I have to say, IMO, that not all things which are legal, are therefore moral.
<>
AFAIK, the wording is pretty much correct too, so you've got a good memory!

I agree with you about the question of morality. But then who defines what is moral and what is not? I can only go by my own set of beliefs and opinions (which, by definition, I believe to be correct).

On the question of whether a majority of people would still support the death penalty if they knew more about it and how it is practiced, I hope that you are right - but I suspect that a majority would still support it. I find that I am becoming more cynical with age.

Sometimes people confuse vengeance with justice. They may be right. I don't think so, but I may be wrong! I really hope that I am not.

As to whether there was an opposing candidate in any election, the answer is that I don't know. But nothing prevented those who oppose capital punishment from standing...

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.

<>

I really think that's the heart of the matter!