I agree with you sir on capital punishment, but I don't agree on abortion. For capital punishment I think the victims family should have the right to decide, but abortion the individual should have the right.
Naked assertions without demonstrate anything. Gesticulating repeatedly and telling me that the catholic church agrees with you does nothing to deduce the conclusions you are submitting A Priori.
Naked assertions without demonstrate anything. Gesticulating repeatedly and telling me that the catholic church agrees with you does nothing to deduce the conclusions you are submitting A Priori.
He uses religion as a stepping stone for his position. His position is, litteraly, a book said abortion is wrong. He then uses this position to lower his oppenent (Hypothetical opponent is whoever "effaces the distinction between innocent life and guilty life") to the level of morality of a slave master. You may agree with Keyes's position, but that is not any reason to pick him over any other candidate since every candidate would agree that his "opponent" has no obligation to any set morals.
what that makes no sense! If we are going to speak of the bible in any part of life we need to stick to it. You can't say its okay to take one life but not okay for another. Both instances in capital punishment and abortions people use their own judgement on whether it is okay or not and what the best thing to do in that particular situation is. I think people should stop making it strictly a black and white for moral judgement when clearly is based on an emotional not always logic.
@nnix It would be interesting to know who in your opinion is not an articulate idiot? you? your like alot of people, you don't like absolute moral truth.
Assuming, she's a wonderful young woman with many qualities as a person. Would you rather she married
a) your lesbian daughter or
b) your heterosexual son.
Assume that your child cares for Ms. Keyes very much, and that the respect and full intent of lifelong fidelity is mutual. Which of the two scenarios do you feel would be the best choice, and please do make a choice. Copping out is not an option!
Isn't this guy a Christian? You know, the religion that commands, "Thou shalt not kill", that states that one should turn the other cheek, practise forgiveness and learn not to hate thy enemy but love them instead?
I'm always astounded how often I see political figures in the States that claim to be Christian but approve of capital punishment, as I have yet to see any scripture say, "It's okay to kill if you feel the person is a bad enough human being.".
"Black people were not developed enough to be treated as human beings .... same thing goes for abortion". You could use that argument for pretty much everything from mosquitoes to baby snails. This argument is so stupid I can only imagine what kind of people would go for it.
@RaiceGeriko ......simply stated.....YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!! IF THIS IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR PROSPECTIVE AND VIEWS...IT IS JUST TOO SCARY TO KNOW WHERE YOU DERIVE YOUR MORAL VALUES FROM.
"abortion is intrinsically and objectively wrong and sinful". Using the word 'objectively' with the word 'sinful' in the same sentence only proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
@noedodson ...add a comma after wrong, and it makes good sense ;) . Mr. Keyes has a good intellect and as well a discerning logic which seems to prevent him from getting caught in the same snares of illogic as some of his opposition. I also must admit I admire the man for his courage.
The catechism teaches that the death penalty is permitted if no other means of assuring public safety are available.
But it also states:
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm...the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent'" (CCC 2267).
Keyes gives new meaning to the term POSSESSED. He actually thinks of himself as some sort of savior, a super-human with wisdom only a higher power can grasp. In reality he is a merely a profoundly flawed human being who brings shame and dishonor to anyone he claims to be "in service to".
you got your bortion and capital punishment wswitched sir.
fact is a woman can not murder who she has not created or given life to.
that is why the vague defination or line of viablility is used.
scientific fact is that at 4 weeks there is only a placenta at 8 the basics of the stysem are formed, only develop and lungs created in the 3rd trimester. we would not say a missing lung or limb make s one not a person. So I hpe this guy avoids masturbation and condoms.
@Jusplais "So I hope this guy avoids masturbation and condoms..."
Me too, because these things are sinful and should be avoided, as the church teaches and I therefore believe.
I do not entirely follow what you are stating in your comment, so do not want to jump to conclusions. But, nobody is qualified to subjectively determine where along in a pregnancy a life created by God supposedly begins. The Church has already stated that human life begins at conception, so ALL abortion is thus murder.
“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." -- Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (1881-1940) Major General USMC, "Old Gimlet Eye'' and "Hell Devil Darling", most highly decorated military man from the pre-World War II era. Source: from a speech in 1933 Ron Paul 2012
To be an anti-gay crusader takes a lot of ignorance as well as learned narcissism. Evangelical congregations offer a crash course for all who want to become masters at oppressing minorities, with a special emphasis on gay bashing.
I agree with the poster who stated that God seems to contact only ignorant and hateful people with messages congratulating the self-loving hate mongers for their "convictions".
@thursdaysrecords1 Can you explain to me how Alan Keyes wants "forced labor for all pregnant women"? I'm sorry, I must have missed something and would like clarification on this. Thank you.
@skeetereze You understand perfectly, or you wouldn't ask. That's a popular little game neo-cons play. They pretend that the facts offered to them are too complicated or too confusing, therefore rather than respond to them, they request clarification.
What part of FORCED LABOR as opposed to FREEDOM OF CHOICE don't you understand? If a woman has NO CHOICE in the matter, she is FORCED to endure unwanted pregnancy AND labor (giving birth). Her CHOICE is talken by those who FORCED her to comply.
@thursdaysrecords1 Okay, I see. No, I am not a NEO-Con. I was faced with this situation many years ago in Kansas. A doctor (a woman) from India performed the abortion for me. I don't know about the legalities, but i assume that it was perfectly legal. Two years later, in the same clinic, I ended up in the emergency room with a severe kidney infection. Although I worked full-time for an insurance company i was unable to afford health insurance. They allowed my unborn child to die.
@thursdaysrecords1 Just to mention, this all happened in the early 1980's. Later on, when I was pregnant, I worked up until the DAY I went into labour...and then returned to work after only TWO weeks. No one paid maternity leave, at least not where I worked. This was not a one-time thing for me either. I experienced this THREE times! I received no special treatment, no protection as a mother, as they do in 'Europe. That's just the way it was, and is.
@thursdaysrecords1 Also, just to add (and I don't mean to be a jerk) but there was no help in paying for babysitters either. I paid a babysitter more than half of what I earned to watch my children. The thing is; I had barely anything left from my earnings for bills. Now, if you think that the American system is BETTER than the European system, concerning mothers and children, then you might want to think again.
@thursdaysrecords1 Many are very ready and willing to perform abortions on women in the United States, while ignoring population explosions in third world countries.
Why is it today, that so many, including prominent Hollywood stars, want children from third-world countries, instead of having their own children, or adopting children from their own homeland? Why don't they concentrate on contraception in other parts of the world instead of constantly harping on Europeans NOT to have children?
@thursdaysrecords1 Also, why don't those rich and famous people adopt children from their own homeland? There are plenty of black, white, asian, indian and mixed children to be adopted in the UNITED STATES! Why don't they start there? Are the laws of the United States too tough??? Come on. What are they trying to prove anyway???
@thursdaysrecords1 I do have reasons for asking this. I was born and raised in the U.S. and know that they don't have what most European countries have in the way of protection of pregnant women and "Kindergeld". Mothers in the U.S. don't have the support that mothers have in most European countries...even the poorest of European countries. I have experienced that!
I would love to see someone like Alan Keyes starring in a Reality Show where a man (without being clued in) is falsely accused and convicted to be executed. I would love to see his ractions during the ordeal, and how he feels about the issue of capital punishment after he sees what it's like to be railroaded and murdered by a flawed system.
Those who are pro forced (forced pregnancy and birth) at the same time have a profound disrespect for those needlessly suffering in this country.
it doesn't matter how u paint it. They are both killing. The woman decides to get rid of a baby she doesn't like. The society decides to get rid of an adult they don't like. They are both immoral
Alan Keyes is too intelligent to be a politician. Seriously though, he would be the BEST candidate for president. He is more intelligent than the previous five or six presidents of the United States...at least.
I agree with most of Keyes positions on a multitude of subjects, and that he is indeed intelligent but he is NOT the best candidate for president. There is an old saying "Wield your cleverness cleverly". It is not necessary to give positions on controversial subjects that are not part of their campaign, nor are they subjects where the president should play a role in. (Watch how Ron Paul responds to questions on similar subjects.) When it's a moral debate, you just can't plz every1.
I couldn't agree more. Alan Keyes is on another level. The level of discussion in American politics has been reduced to character defamation and about 2 minutes to explain complex points that require much more deliberation and formulation. Twitter politics is ruining chances for really smart people to get in power. It is much easier to appeal to emotion rather than reason and get lots of really stupid people to vote for you, rather than saying something of quality like this.
I'm also concerned about the welfare of sperm and I never hear anyone discussing this. As we learn in the bible, "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Amen.
@MrBinieam Quite so, a bit more than Gingrich but I appreciate him as well, if you haven't check him out, do so he knows alot about history and science among other things.
@coolcat3232 The true test of morality is adhereing to it even when it is inconvenient for you to do so. Alan Keyes passed that test with flying colours.
@Robertjcksn40 He has called homosexuality "selfish hedonism" , plus i may be wrong but i think he has said he wouldnt aprove "of something which destroys the soul" of his daughter who is a lesbian. I would call that homophobic and i think he seems a bit ignorant as well.
@Metasand Alan Keyes is ignorant and homophobic? Why? Because he doesn't agree with your messiah/tyrant Obama? Funny how anyone who doesn't agree with a libtard is either racist, ignorant, or homophobic. The only truly ignorant person in today's world is one that would vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama, you seriously have no fucking clue what the hell is going on around you. Everyone's ass in this country is on fire and you moron liberals are the only ones who can't seem to smell the smoke.
@SamVarriano Poor remarks? Since when does someone elses sex life have to be made public? It's none of your buisness, and some of us have a right to believe those activities are reprehensible. And furthermore, commenting "poor remarks" as though biology and the science of procreation dont make sense to you as though you hold moral highground. Tell me, when a man sticks a gerbil in his butt, would you consider that morally right? I'm pretty sure you don't, since cock belongs there instead.
@Robertjcksn40 Just to let you know that I will soon be deleting the ignorant and offensive comments you made on my channel about a US Vietnam war veteran and amputee. In which book of the Bible did you learn that kind of language?
Also, Dostoevsky's argument stated in The Idiot and elsewhere is of interest here. The victim of a murderer almost always has the hope of escape. A person to be executed by the state knows that his death is certain and counts the minutes. For Christians it seems absurd to support capital punishment and they are forced into doing biblical gymnastics to justify it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL seems to sum the death penalty up nicely. It is easier to condemn murder if you don't commit it.
I don't think he's necessarily arguing in favor of capital punishment but the distinction between innocent and guilty life. That being said, capital punishment is certainly wrong morally (even if it wasn't true that innocent people have been executed) and makes no financial sense (cheaper to throw away the key). I don't see how Christians can support capital punishment since it leaves no chance for the redemption of the criminal.
does Mr. Keyes eat meat? He should be opposed to it as well! Eating meat is killing innocent lives thus it is a OBJECTIVELY(lol) fundamentally violation of civil rights. I am just looking for some consistency here!
I share your concern with political correctness, but that's really a peripheral issue. Anyone can cherry pick particular incidences of government abuse and use them to attack "secularism"--I could do the same thing to underscore the dangers of religion--but that's not an intellectually honest approach. As always, reality is much more complex than that.
It's hard to imagine Jesus being okay with the death penalty. As for distinguishing between "innocent life" and "guilty life," I've been told by Christians that none of us is innocent--that we are all born with original sin. Beside, if we're "created," then isn't up to the Creator to decide who lives and who dies?
@ClumsyRoot Yes, you're confused. As humans we're all born in sin and do not deserve eternal life save for the sinless life of Jesus imputed to us by faith. God decides who lives and dies eternally. In the case of capital crime, the God delegates his judgment to earthly judges for them to determine who lives or dies here on earth after committing a capital crime. Executing criminals guilty of capital crimes hastens their judgment by God of their eternal fate.
You've memorized the party line, I'll give you that...
Again, it's hard to imagine Jesus "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" Christ supporting capital punishment.
I have many Christian friends. Some support the death penalty (using Scripture as a justification), while others oppose it (using Scripture as a justification).
@ClumsyRoot It's not a matter of "memorizing the party line." It's a matter of subscribing to it. That takes study. The story of the harlot is a lot more complicated than you imply and should not be used as a justification for excusing all temporal sin. Strictly speaking, the male offender in this case wasn't also brought out for judgment as required in the law. Secondly, the incident was a trap the Pharisees were setting for Jesus. Jesus showed mercy to the harlot yet told her to sin no more.
@ClumsyRoot Read Gary North's "Victim's Rights" for a full exposition of how Biblical law operates. The little sound bites that YouTube offers doesn't do the subject justice. Beware, however. The book has its technical elements and is not an easy read.
@ClumsyRoot In the same way, politicians all use the Constitution to justify their positions. The real issue is whether the use is correct or corrupt. I subscribe to the notion that politicians who claim the Constitution as a "living document" that can be twisted whichever way the politically fashionable winds blow are corrupt, as that goes against the original purpose of the Constitution as a legal "spine" that could only be bent so far before breaking. The use of the Bible is the same.
The Constitution is, in some respects, a "living document"--as evidenced by the fact that the founders provided a means by which it could be amended. (Keep in mind that the original Constitution contains some problematic parts, such as the infamous "three-fifths compromise.")
Our Constitution is idealistic, and ideals, by their nature, take time to realize. If we had stuck to a "strict constructionist" approach, today only white, land-owning males would be able to vote.
@ClumsyRoot The amendment procedure is indeed the Constitution is meant to be viewed as a "living document," not the way activist judges try to twist and turn the meaning of it to fit their pet projects. The 3/5 compromise was indeed problematic, but if you read the history of it, it was a way for the North to keep Southern representation down so that slavery as an institution could eventually be eliminated--while at the same time getting the South to approve of the Constitution.
It's the same situation with the separation of church and state--although the concept is written into the First Amendment, the actual secularization of government has taken time. Again, it's an ideal that has yet to be completely realized. Christianity still remains somewhat entwined with civil authority, but gradually the two are being disentangled.
@ClumsyRoot Ah, this is where you take a corruption as "progress." Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Church was a focus on Federalism: the *national* government was not to *establish* a national church nor endorse a single church: that was a function of the individual States. Thus Maryland was Catholic, Penn. was Quaker, etc. The idea of "secularism" simply replaces the God of the Bible with the God of Government. Obama's campaign was clearly messianiac in portrayal.
The establishment clause is not simply a prohibition against a "national church"--we know this because such narrow wording was considered by the founders and was rejected. The clause is broad because Jefferson intended it to be broad.
Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was, for its time, quite radical, and underscored that while Jefferson himself was hardly a secular man, he understood that separating civil authority from ecclesiastic authority was best for BOTH.
@ClumsyRoot The establishment clause--in fact most of the Constitution--is a statement of limitations on the *Federal* government. It is not meant to create limitations on state or local governments, nor on public expression per se.
Jefferson's Virginia Statute wasn't designed to "scrub government clean" of any and all religious references or influences, as contemporary secularists strive to do. We don't have a "secularist litmus test" to disqualify legislators if they adhere to their faith.
@ClumsyRoot Secularists make "man" (i.e. the majority of men or a single man) the source "from whom all blessings flow." Invariably you end up with increasing totalitarianism; either the bloat of our present federal government which tries to make a laws controlling life down to the minutaes, or the aggrandizement of a central government "Man," such as Stalin, Mao or the "Man-Savior" Obama tried to portray himself as being during his campaign. 1,000,000 Laws vs. the 10 Commandments.
You seem to be conflating secularism and totalitarianism.
The vast majority of secular-minded people I know value democracy and liberty above all else. In any event, one need only look to the theocracies in the Middle East to see religious people are hardly averse to using the state to further their ideologies.
Nor do secularists/humanists worship humanity. We simply acknowledge that no one is going to save us from ourselves, so it's in our best interest to work together.
@ClumsyRoot Secularism invariably moves towards totalitaritarianism. It may take a generation or two or three, but there it goes. Just look at how the EU has been moving, alternating between bureaucratic total control and anarchistic revolt when the "goodies" stop flowing and the bread and circuses are threatened. The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. Middle Eastern theocracies are abhorrently different from a theonomic society, which was the ideal of One Nation Under God.
@ClumsyRoot Secularists don't want to "work together " with people of religious faith. They want religious people to shut up, keep quiet, go to the back of the bus and act in public as though they adhere to the secular vision of humanity--much like the Romans didn't mind Christians so long as they practiced their faith in private and made public sacrifice to the local Roman gods. When Christians insisted on remaining publically Christian, they were condemned--as secularists continue to do today.
The kind of secularists you refer to are extremists, and it's simplistic to suggest that they are typical. Would it be fair of me to judge Christianity based on the actions of its most aggressive fundamentalists?
Most of my friends are atheists, and not a single one of them has any desire to make religious folk "shut up." What concerns us is when religious people aren't content with just expressing their faith, but feel compelled to use the reins of gov't to promote their faith.
Your comments underscore the sad fact that people harbor all sorts of misconceptions about secularism. For example, most secularists have no desire to impinge upon the religious freedoms of believers; we value freedom of conscience and urge people to think through things for themselves and then express those conclusions. What we DO object to is when people of faith attempt to use civil authority to gain favored status for their particular religion.
@ClumsyRoot Having been a secularist in the past, you're mistaken. You guys don't mind "religious people practicing their religion" so long as they keep to themselves in a religious ghetto outside the public square, like folks in ancient times didn't kill lepers, they kept them isolated outside the city walls. Secularists want to religiously sterilize the public square so that they can impose their law-order and their version of "conscience" on everyone else.
I'm always amused when people presume to tell me what I believe. :)
I'm not referring to the gung-ho secularists, who are as aggressive and intolerant as the worst fundamentalists. Nor do I envision the public square denuded of religion; I simply don't want the government to play favorites.
Right now, you are free to worship and pray in the public square. And as long as you aren't disturbing the peace, you can witness to others. But this doesn't seem to be enough for many... (cont.)
@ClumsyRoot If you label yourself a secularist you assume a public mantle which proclaims tenants of that mantle. If others react to that mantle, you can hardly imply they are presumptuous in "telling you what you believe." The fact is that secularists pray at the alter of a secular god and its law-order, and will not tolerate competing law-orders. While over 85% of the population is professiong Christian, that's irrelevant. They must not vote or express political views tied to faith.
I'm a secularist to the extent that I wish the government to stay clear of religious matters. I don't envision a world without religion, only one in which people are free to come to their own conclusions without fear of reprisal, a world in which beliefs are arrived at in a free and open environment. I certainly don't wish ANY religious group to be oppressed, no matter how abjectly silly their beliefs might seem to me.
OF COURSE religious faith should inform political views.
@ClumsyRoot Check out the UK Mail story about Martin Gaskell, an astronomer who was denied a job in spite of his being described as 'breathtakingly above the other applicants" because he was a Christian. The Search Committee expressed fears he "may be a creationist." They could easily have hired him with the standard expectation that he not express his religious view while acting as a public representative of the University. Instead they denied him for the thought-crime of being a Christian.
(cont.)... religious folk; they aren't happy unless they get official government sanction for their particular faith.
As the religious make-up of this country has changed, Christianity is losing its privileged status (finally!), and Christians tend to interpret this emerging government neutrality toward their religion as hostility, even "persecution." But such claims ring hollow.
I disagree that "secularism invariably moves toward totalitarianism." Look, e.g., at Sweden... (cont.)
@ClumsyRoot Again, it's not just a question of "losing privledged status." It's a question of many secularists treating religious faith as a fundamental disqualifier of a person or a position taken. Take the Christian position that humans are "made in the image of God." That means we *don't* own our bodies, God does. We're supposed to care for them decently and treat them as temples. It also means we see others as "images of God" also. This implies a respect for life that many secularists deny.
(cont.)... or the Netherlands, extremely secular societies. Both defend free speech and human rights to a degree that puts the U.S. to shame.
Problems invariably emerge when civil authorities attempt to impose particular ideologies (religious or otherwise) on their citizens. And if you look at Christian history, you'll see the same trend: When given the opportunity, Christians are usually willing to use the government to promote their personal beliefs.... (cont.)
@ClumsyRoot If you look at the Netherlands you'll see that they sanction involuntary euthanasia based on economic considerations. If that isn't an example of secular imposition of values backed by government force I don't know what is. Christian objections have no real public voice. In Sweden the government will kidnap your kids if you attempt to home school them and assign them to foster parents. This is "tolerance" and not the imposition of a moral position?
I'm not saying I agree with everything that the government does in those countries. But at least the citizens are free to discuss and debates the issues. Christians in those countries are free to offer objections; the fact that those objections aren't being taken seriously isn't the issue.
I suspect that many believers are bothered by the fact that more and more people are openly and honestly assessing at the claims of religion and finding them less than compelling.
@ClumsyRoot As a Christian I see a heck of a lot of poor to mediocre descriptions of Christian doctrine being put out there by professed Christian pastors and seeing the social results of that. That is the expected result of apostacy. Some of the apostacy is by lunatic Baptists pushing a heretical "left behind" theology, other apostacy is by liberals attempting to create a PC Christianity. Other, more articulate ministeries such as Ravi Zacharias have rapidly expanding congregations.
@ClumsyRoot In the name of political correctness, the city of Uppsala responded to the repeated raping of its female Swedish citizens by Muslims from Somalia by criticizing the victims and suggesting that if women didn't want to be raped they wear "less inviting" clothing. Secularists claim to be "tolerant" but in practice that works out to public anti-Christianity while tip-toeing around other religions.
(cont.)... Our founders looked at the sectarian conflicts which ravaged Europe for centuries and realized that the best thing that gov't can do is stay out of religious matters completely. Religion should never be imposed from above; it should emerge organically as a conscious decision by individual believers.
I have no desire to "impose" anything on my fellow citizens. On matters of conscience, we should all be free to come to our own conclusions, without gov't coercion.
@ClumsyRoot In one respect, we're in agreement. Theonomic Christianity claims that any attempt to "steal the robes" by imposing its views top-down from the government to the people is heretical. That is known as "theocracy" and is what happens, for example in Islamic societies. Theonomy uses the bottom-up "mustard seed" approach, which starts at individual government, moves to the family, and emerges organically upwards. This involves civil government but starts locally and grows from there.
Yes, I think we are in agreement on that point. It all comes down to what our founders called "freedom of conscience," and in my opinion it is an inviolable right.
Again, the problem emerges when a government, or religious institutions in cahoots with civil authority, decide to impose a particular ideology upon its citizenry--when a certain "party line" becomes the only acceptable viewpoint.
@ClumsyRoot Laws by their nature are expressions of their underlying morality. Morality either comes from religious faith or it comes from some substitution thereof. Governments can't "stay out of religious matters completely." Taxes have a religious basis. Crime and punishment have religious bases. Even monatary policy is religiuosly based. The Bible insists on "honest weights and measures." This prohibits the government from inflating or "monetizing" the currency base to pay off its debts.
@ClumsyRoot I've been enjoying it as well. I suspect we'd have a good coversation over a Sam Adams or two if we were to meet in the real (as opposed to the virtual) world. :-)
For its time, the U.S. Constitution was a radical, visionary document, and it remains so even today. And it is most radical in its insistence that the federal government remain secular. Much to the chagrin of Christians at the time, the document acknowledges no gods and no holy books, and explicitly bans the use of religious tests for public office. It is neutral on matters of faith.
The result has been a country in which religion flourishes like nowhere else.
@ClumsyRoot The Constitution's vision follows the vision of the Declaration. The Bill of Rights presumes the "inalienable rights" articulated in the Declaration. Law orders presume a higher legitimacy. If the Constitution isn't claiming its legitimacy from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration, than it's claiming as "god" the "people," which is absurd. The Framers abhored democracy, seeing it correctly as mob rule under the sway of demogogues. The "balance of powers" assumes original sin.
@ClumsyRoot It's not quite accurate to say that only males had the vote. It originally was "one vote per household," which meant that the man as the "spokesperson" of the family did the voting. But if the man was away or dead, the wife or widow voted as the voice of the household. The idea behind land ownership was that the voters needed to have a vested interest in the country. Landless immigrants typically had greater loyalty to their home country than to the U.S. We still have that problem.
Agreed. However, my initial point remains: The Constitution is a set of ideals that can only be realized gradually over time.
For example, allowing women and blacks to vote and to hold office is an actualization of the ideal of equality inherent in our founding documents--even though, to most of those living in late 18th century America, such a reality would have been unthinkable.
@ClumsyRoot Agreed there also. In the same way, the Bible holds to certain ideals that can only be realized gradually over time--such is the meaning behind the parable of the mustard seed.
guilty life? what defines someone as guilty, someone who has commited a crime. people have been sentenced to death without ever commiting a crime, but i guess it doesnt matter, as long as the judge thinks your guilty, then its ok for you to die.
@totallysickawesome The definition of capital crimes is extensively spelled out in the Bible. Yes, some innocent people invariably are wrongly convicted and then wrongly executed. By far the opposite occurs, where the guilty go unpunished. In the case of the innocent wrongly executed, their eternal fate would be determined by the mercy of God, whereas those people who wrongly convicted and executed that person face the eternal justice (wrath) of God. Jesus was wrongly executed.
Well... scientifically speaking a fetus actually isn't a developed human being, if you take it out of the womb, it cannot survive by itself. Not only that but I believe you are infringing upon the rights of women if you make abortion illegal; they should and can do what they want with their body even if that includes abortion. Not only that but if abortion is criminalized all that will result is women risking infection/death when they attempt aborting in other ways instead of safely with doctors
@MilkNCrayons It doesn't matter if it is a developed human being or not, it is still a human being. And since it is a human being it deserves the right not to be murdered.
@MilkNCrayons Well, scientifically speaking, a six week old baby isn't a developed human being either. If you take it out of its parents or other human protection, it cannot survive by itself. By your definition, a human isn't qualified not to be executed until after it's completed college and has a job.
what if we develop the technology to determaine what a fetus will do as an adult in the womb? And we can know who is a future serial killer, or child molester, or adolph hitler. Then what. Not abort? I dont think so. Morality is the last baston of a coward-
@zatoichi1969 Capital punishment follow capital behavior, not capital inclanations. We will *never* develop any technology that will "determine what a fetus will do as an adult." The human genome is far more complex than that. In terms of epigenetics, we are a complex interaction of gene potentials, environmental influences and personal choices. I work with plenty of people who are genetically loaded to be schizophrenic, yet choose not to act out those tendencies, sometimes w/ great effrort.
@zatoichi1969 I see it the other way: the resistence to morality is the first and last bastion of a coward. By the way, are you aware the label of "coward" is a moral label? Many folks fancy themselves "brave" by going against the moral standards of their parents or of other authority figures. This just shows the "courage" of the adolescent who has yet to grow up. Adults have moral positions. Some are well thought out, some are not. An adult's job is to work these things out for him or herself.
Abortion is necessary in certain circumstances, and I believe is moral if those circumstances are significant enough and if the developing embryo does not yet "resemble" a baby. I mean, how far back do you go? By using a condom you prevent the sperm and egg meeting - that's preventing life! A developing embryo is, to start with, just a ball of multiplying cells, and should not be considered a full human until it reaches further development. Capital punishment is state- sponsored murder.
@5LJ3A2 "Murder" by definition is killing outside the bounds of the law. State-sanctioned killing by definition is not murder. A drug dealer who shoots a man in the street is acting outside the law, so that killing is defined as murder. The police officer who kills the drug dealer in a shootout is killing the drug dealer within the bounds of the law--so by definition such killing is not murder. A legitimate state execution is not murder by definition. Get your terms straight.
@taiji218 Names and definitions are somewhat irrelevant when considering morality, though yes, I agree that under the law of nations that practice capital punishment, it is not considered murder. However, I believe it should be seen as such.
@5LJ3A2 Au contraire: names and definitions are supremely relevant when considering morality; otherwise words can be twisted to fit the fashion of whatever group is in power. The Soviets routinely executed people for the "thought-crime" of disagreeing with the State; others in this country are denied jobs for the thought-crime of adhering to Christianity.
@5LJ3A2 Regarding your view that capital punishment be seen as murder or "illegal killing," my question is this: first, upon what do you make that as a moral claim? Second: do you believe that someone who at age 23 butchers a family of four deserves to live at a taxpayer cost of $35-$55,000 a year for the next 50-60 years? Where is the morality in that? Do you believe he should be released to kill again after 10-15 years, now with an "advanced degree" in criminal behavior and compassion?
There too much narcissism on that stage for the world to handle. Keyes is still awesome. He's very good at public speaking and that's without a teleprompter.
alan keyes is a pseudo-intellect. and he is an idiot.
the question of morality as applied to the DP is a violation against the division of church and state. it is a question of ethics, not morality. and ETHICALLY, i do not give a fuck what ratzass excuse me ratzinger says, it is wrong to flip the switch to kill another person, even if they killed someone else.
@djalternegro You're making a false distinction between ethics and morality. Upon what are you basing your "ethical" claim that capital punishment is wrong? Is it more "ethical" to allow a 23 year old who's butchered a family of four to live at taxpayer expense of $35-55,000/yr for 50-60 years, a total of $1,750,000 to $3,300,000 out of taxpayers' pockets? Or should we release him after 10-15 years with an "advanced degree" in criminal thinking and behavior? You want this guy next door to you?
gosh i hate it when people talk about things they don't understand. o.k. um first of all ethics and morals ARE different SILLY, that is why they are two different words representing 2 different ideas. to put it in simple terms morals are like saying "what would jesus do?" ethics are like "what would you
do when you intrinsically know and understand the difference between right and wrong irrespective of what mommy or daddy or church says, i.e..." okay so that is point number one. ..
@djalternegro Ignoring your belittling and insulting innuemdos, you take the humanistic assumption that ehics are "self-determined" and therefore "mature" whereas morals (as you define them) are simply introjected from "mommy and daddy" and are therefore "immature." That again is an attempt at humanistic oneupsmanship. It denies the idea that one's "self-determined ethics" could be psychological resistences from one's parents' values; it assumes that "self-determined ethics" are de facto "good."
@djalternegro "Self-defined ethics" assume that one man's an another man's "ethics" will be at least similar enough that they can operate alongside of each other. But what if I make a "self-determined ethical" decision that I deserve what you have because you have more than I do and so I deserve to take enough to make it "fair" and "equal" according to my "ethical" calculus? The entire assumption that "self-determined = ethical" is bogus. I've seen many immature and cruel "self-determined" folk.
secondly to answer your question upon what am i basing...blah blah... the ETHICAL foundation for ANY type of punishment is two fold: to prevent acts that require punishment, and to provide an offender the opportunity to reflect upon his or her bad behavior. capital punishment does neither. it is a great example of an EYE for an EYE. but an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. you are reducing your argument to questions of money or economics....
@djalternegro Another basis for "punishment" if you will is restitution to the victim. The "eye for an eye" formula is simply a metaphor that the punishment must fit the crime. If a person takes out the eye of another, the victim can claim *only* an eye's worth of punishment in return (it doesn't have to be a literal eye; it could be "an eye's worth" of monetary compensation). It prohibits "a life for an eye" kind of punishment that is far in excess of the injustice. Go past the superficial!
@djalternegro The meaning of "an eye for an eye" in connection with capital punishment is that if a person is convicted of murder, the victim's family can claim only the murderer's life; it cannot go after the killer's family or clan. The idea was to prevent the blood feuds that were common in ancient times--and common these days as well where society has started to break down. Another purpose of capital punishment is to protect society from the killer. It works every time it's used.
@taiji218 and not even sticking with the question of ethics OR EVEN morals...i have zero respect for that because it shows weakness. instead of talking about god, morals, OR ethics, just say you are unwilling to pay for criminals and leave your beliefs and convictions out of it because they clearly have nothing to do with it.
as for as this guy living next door to me, i am the wrong person to ask because i think i can learn from anyone. anyway i will talk to you when cp actually prevents.
@djalternegro You're right on that one: I'm unwilling to pay for unrepentent murderers to live off the public dime. My morals have everything to do with it. That money can be spent in much more productive ways. You forget that money equals a man's time, which equals portions of his life earning that money. If it's a choice between paying for an unrepentent murderer to live versus paying that money to feed the poor, I say feed the poor. Money's not unlimited. You seem to assume it is.
slave and fetus analogy is just... wow.. just terribly misleading. But most people have their own opinion already before they listen to anything, they would welcome any smart sounding analogy
i love this guy
jr5607 10 hours ago
I wish i had a quarter for every grandiose, ostentatious, philosophical pseudo-intellectual word he uses. I'd love to argue with this idiot.
billyg89 1 day ago
I agree with you sir on capital punishment, but I don't agree on abortion. For capital punishment I think the victims family should have the right to decide, but abortion the individual should have the right.
ajbren92 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Naked assertions without demonstrate anything. Gesticulating repeatedly and telling me that the catholic church agrees with you does nothing to deduce the conclusions you are submitting A Priori.
firstatheist 5 days ago
Naked assertions without demonstrate anything. Gesticulating repeatedly and telling me that the catholic church agrees with you does nothing to deduce the conclusions you are submitting A Priori.
firstatheist 5 days ago
Alan Keyes...my political hero that should be running for president again!
kingofsalem1225 1 week ago
He uses religion as a stepping stone for his position. His position is, litteraly, a book said abortion is wrong. He then uses this position to lower his oppenent (Hypothetical opponent is whoever "effaces the distinction between innocent life and guilty life") to the level of morality of a slave master. You may agree with Keyes's position, but that is not any reason to pick him over any other candidate since every candidate would agree that his "opponent" has no obligation to any set morals.
Brasharful 1 week ago
what that makes no sense! If we are going to speak of the bible in any part of life we need to stick to it. You can't say its okay to take one life but not okay for another. Both instances in capital punishment and abortions people use their own judgement on whether it is okay or not and what the best thing to do in that particular situation is. I think people should stop making it strictly a black and white for moral judgement when clearly is based on an emotional not always logic.
rasb824 2 weeks ago
Keyes and Gingrich, the most articulate idiots in America.
nnix 3 weeks ago
@nnix It would be interesting to know who in your opinion is not an articulate idiot? you? your like alot of people, you don't like absolute moral truth.
wewereneverthere 2 weeks ago
@wewereneverthere I do, however, appreciate proper grammar. "You're." Not "Your."
nnix 2 weeks ago
I've watched about 10 videos with this guy, and he has hit it right on the head every time.
RaiceGeriko 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alan Keyes' daughter is a lesbian.
Assuming, she's a wonderful young woman with many qualities as a person. Would you rather she married
a) your lesbian daughter or
b) your heterosexual son.
Assume that your child cares for Ms. Keyes very much, and that the respect and full intent of lifelong fidelity is mutual. Which of the two scenarios do you feel would be the best choice, and please do make a choice. Copping out is not an option!
By the way, Alan Keyes has disowned his daughter.
thursdaysrecords1 1 month ago
Isn't this guy a Christian? You know, the religion that commands, "Thou shalt not kill", that states that one should turn the other cheek, practise forgiveness and learn not to hate thy enemy but love them instead?
I'm always astounded how often I see political figures in the States that claim to be Christian but approve of capital punishment, as I have yet to see any scripture say, "It's okay to kill if you feel the person is a bad enough human being.".
note4note 1 month ago
Alan Keyes speaks clearly for those who are covering their eyes to these moral issues.
makattackmiler 1 month ago
"Black people were not developed enough to be treated as human beings .... same thing goes for abortion". You could use that argument for pretty much everything from mosquitoes to baby snails. This argument is so stupid I can only imagine what kind of people would go for it.
noedodson 1 month ago
@noedodson Are bugs and snails developed enough to be treated as human beings?
RaiceGeriko 3 weeks ago
@RaiceGeriko ......simply stated.....YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!! IF THIS IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR PROSPECTIVE AND VIEWS...IT IS JUST TOO SCARY TO KNOW WHERE YOU DERIVE YOUR MORAL VALUES FROM.
vibre123 1 week ago
"abortion is intrinsically and objectively wrong and sinful". Using the word 'objectively' with the word 'sinful' in the same sentence only proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
noedodson 1 month ago
@noedodson ...add a comma after wrong, and it makes good sense ;) . Mr. Keyes has a good intellect and as well a discerning logic which seems to prevent him from getting caught in the same snares of illogic as some of his opposition. I also must admit I admire the man for his courage.
wakeupnowsean 3 weeks ago
@noedodson No. It's not his problem that you ignore facts on a whim.
RaiceGeriko 3 weeks ago
God Bless You and keep You Brother. It takes courage to stand. May the Lord repay you for your stand.
theroldans 1 month ago 3
I like his hand gestures.
fightingirishman726 1 month ago
Alan, state the Church's entire position.
The catechism teaches that the death penalty is permitted if no other means of assuring public safety are available.
But it also states:
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm...the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent'" (CCC 2267).
baguazhang77 1 month ago
Keyes gives new meaning to the term POSSESSED. He actually thinks of himself as some sort of savior, a super-human with wisdom only a higher power can grasp. In reality he is a merely a profoundly flawed human being who brings shame and dishonor to anyone he claims to be "in service to".
schlummieleinchen1 1 month ago
you got your bortion and capital punishment wswitched sir.
fact is a woman can not murder who she has not created or given life to.
that is why the vague defination or line of viablility is used.
scientific fact is that at 4 weeks there is only a placenta at 8 the basics of the stysem are formed, only develop and lungs created in the 3rd trimester. we would not say a missing lung or limb make s one not a person. So I hpe this guy avoids masturbation and condoms.
Jusplais 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jusplais "So I hope this guy avoids masturbation and condoms..."
Me too, because these things are sinful and should be avoided, as the church teaches and I therefore believe.
I do not entirely follow what you are stating in your comment, so do not want to jump to conclusions. But, nobody is qualified to subjectively determine where along in a pregnancy a life created by God supposedly begins. The Church has already stated that human life begins at conception, so ALL abortion is thus murder.
baguazhang77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." -- Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (1881-1940) Major General USMC, "Old Gimlet Eye'' and "Hell Devil Darling", most highly decorated military man from the pre-World War II era. Source: from a speech in 1933 Ron Paul 2012
possumpistol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To be an anti-gay crusader takes a lot of ignorance as well as learned narcissism. Evangelical congregations offer a crash course for all who want to become masters at oppressing minorities, with a special emphasis on gay bashing.
I agree with the poster who stated that God seems to contact only ignorant and hateful people with messages congratulating the self-loving hate mongers for their "convictions".
thursdaysrecords1 3 months ago
Why do Republicans always contradict their own "beliefs" and teachings?
They want FORCED labor for all pregnant women, while calling it support of LIFE.
They want to MURDER those who have been found guilty of the same (while a few "wrong calls" get executed despite being innocent).
They want OTHERS to sacrifice and suffer, but they themselves want be comfortable.
How can anyone call himself a "compassionate Christian", when his actions suggest the exact opposite? This is truly disgusting!
thursdaysrecords1 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Can you explain to me how Alan Keyes wants "forced labor for all pregnant women"? I'm sorry, I must have missed something and would like clarification on this. Thank you.
skeetereze 3 months ago
@skeetereze You understand perfectly, or you wouldn't ask. That's a popular little game neo-cons play. They pretend that the facts offered to them are too complicated or too confusing, therefore rather than respond to them, they request clarification.
What part of FORCED LABOR as opposed to FREEDOM OF CHOICE don't you understand? If a woman has NO CHOICE in the matter, she is FORCED to endure unwanted pregnancy AND labor (giving birth). Her CHOICE is talken by those who FORCED her to comply.
thursdaysrecords1 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Okay, I see. No, I am not a NEO-Con. I was faced with this situation many years ago in Kansas. A doctor (a woman) from India performed the abortion for me. I don't know about the legalities, but i assume that it was perfectly legal. Two years later, in the same clinic, I ended up in the emergency room with a severe kidney infection. Although I worked full-time for an insurance company i was unable to afford health insurance. They allowed my unborn child to die.
skeetereze 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Just to mention, this all happened in the early 1980's. Later on, when I was pregnant, I worked up until the DAY I went into labour...and then returned to work after only TWO weeks. No one paid maternity leave, at least not where I worked. This was not a one-time thing for me either. I experienced this THREE times! I received no special treatment, no protection as a mother, as they do in 'Europe. That's just the way it was, and is.
skeetereze 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Also, just to add (and I don't mean to be a jerk) but there was no help in paying for babysitters either. I paid a babysitter more than half of what I earned to watch my children. The thing is; I had barely anything left from my earnings for bills. Now, if you think that the American system is BETTER than the European system, concerning mothers and children, then you might want to think again.
skeetereze 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Many are very ready and willing to perform abortions on women in the United States, while ignoring population explosions in third world countries.
Why is it today, that so many, including prominent Hollywood stars, want children from third-world countries, instead of having their own children, or adopting children from their own homeland? Why don't they concentrate on contraception in other parts of the world instead of constantly harping on Europeans NOT to have children?
skeetereze 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 Also, why don't those rich and famous people adopt children from their own homeland? There are plenty of black, white, asian, indian and mixed children to be adopted in the UNITED STATES! Why don't they start there? Are the laws of the United States too tough??? Come on. What are they trying to prove anyway???
skeetereze 3 months ago
@thursdaysrecords1 I do have reasons for asking this. I was born and raised in the U.S. and know that they don't have what most European countries have in the way of protection of pregnant women and "Kindergeld". Mothers in the U.S. don't have the support that mothers have in most European countries...even the poorest of European countries. I have experienced that!
skeetereze 3 months ago
I'd vote for Alan Keyes before I'd vote for Obama, or Bush, or anyone else...
skeetereze 3 months ago
fuck the death penelty
edwardd6681 3 months ago
I would love to see someone like Alan Keyes starring in a Reality Show where a man (without being clued in) is falsely accused and convicted to be executed. I would love to see his ractions during the ordeal, and how he feels about the issue of capital punishment after he sees what it's like to be railroaded and murdered by a flawed system.
Those who are pro forced (forced pregnancy and birth) at the same time have a profound disrespect for those needlessly suffering in this country.
Chelsea4President 3 months ago
it doesn't matter how u paint it. They are both killing. The woman decides to get rid of a baby she doesn't like. The society decides to get rid of an adult they don't like. They are both immoral
jopaddy81 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>> "Alan Keyes is too intelligent to be a politician."
He's a birther.
Glasya666 4 months ago
Alan Keyes is too intelligent to be a politician. Seriously though, he would be the BEST candidate for president. He is more intelligent than the previous five or six presidents of the United States...at least.
skeetereze 4 months ago
@skeetereze
I agree with most of Keyes positions on a multitude of subjects, and that he is indeed intelligent but he is NOT the best candidate for president. There is an old saying "Wield your cleverness cleverly". It is not necessary to give positions on controversial subjects that are not part of their campaign, nor are they subjects where the president should play a role in. (Watch how Ron Paul responds to questions on similar subjects.) When it's a moral debate, you just can't plz every1.
PhoenixOpenProject 3 months ago in playlist Demo goofs
Real Americans don't take authority from Mussolini's Puppet State
kgard89 4 months ago
i disagree with this guy
koala8 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How come nobody protested when Timothy McVeigh was executed?
Clearly, they aren't against capital punishment-- just STATES doing it, while they believe that the FEDERAL government can do no wrong.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
Mr Alan Keyes is murder wrong?
rjh00 5 months ago
the comments on any allen keys video are proof that the country doesn't deserve a president this clear headed
roman14032 6 months ago 18
@roman14032 i agree with you.
ray7685 5 months ago
@roman14032 His sources are religious bigots?
chucknchar 4 months ago
@roman14032
I couldn't agree more. Alan Keyes is on another level. The level of discussion in American politics has been reduced to character defamation and about 2 minutes to explain complex points that require much more deliberation and formulation. Twitter politics is ruining chances for really smart people to get in power. It is much easier to appeal to emotion rather than reason and get lots of really stupid people to vote for you, rather than saying something of quality like this.
JudokaJames 3 months ago
@roman14032 Well he asserts that a deity created us and issued specific rights to us so is that not a kind of major strike against him right there...
Also if you listen to what he says about capital punishment there you will realise it dosent make a heck of a lot of sense...
arklowrockz 1 week ago
@roman14032
actually its proof that this country doesn't deserve a theocrat whose basis on public policy come from extrapolations of bronze aged myths,
firstatheist 5 days ago
See, killing is bad, mmkay, but some killings are less bad than other killings, mmkay?
GeeWizzers1 7 months ago
What a buffoon.
upabittoolate 7 months ago
I'm also concerned about the welfare of sperm and I never hear anyone discussing this. As we learn in the bible, "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Amen.
ivanmikhailov 7 months ago
@ivanmikhailov Someone has been reading Genesis 38.
brenjfs 6 months ago
GENIUS
arkotitus 7 months ago
this guy is brilliant
MrBinieam 8 months ago 17
@MrBinieam Quite so, a bit more than Gingrich but I appreciate him as well, if you haven't check him out, do so he knows alot about history and science among other things.
wewereneverthere 2 weeks ago
What a crock of shite.
AntiochusMegas 9 months ago
he disowned his daughter for being a lesbian. there's your morals, for you.
coolcat3232 10 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@coolcat3232
If given a choice, wouldn't YOU rather have a pussy than a dad? LOL
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@coolcat3232 good for him, if she wants to be a degenerate she gets what she deserves
bnsaints 4 months ago
@coolcat3232 The true test of morality is adhereing to it even when it is inconvenient for you to do so. Alan Keyes passed that test with flying colours.
historypoliticsbb 4 months ago
wow what a douche.
coolcat3232 10 months ago
"Yall niggas voting for a shitty president."
Man speaks truth.
pyramidheadkitten9 10 months ago
@Robertjcksn40 He has called homosexuality "selfish hedonism" , plus i may be wrong but i think he has said he wouldnt aprove "of something which destroys the soul" of his daughter who is a lesbian. I would call that homophobic and i think he seems a bit ignorant as well.
Metasand 10 months ago
alan keyes seems ignorant and homophobic. He may be good at speaking but that´s problably all i think.
Metasand 10 months ago
@Metasand Alan Keyes is ignorant and homophobic? Why? Because he doesn't agree with your messiah/tyrant Obama? Funny how anyone who doesn't agree with a libtard is either racist, ignorant, or homophobic. The only truly ignorant person in today's world is one that would vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama, you seriously have no fucking clue what the hell is going on around you. Everyone's ass in this country is on fire and you moron liberals are the only ones who can't seem to smell the smoke.
Robertjcksn40 10 months ago
@Robertjcksn40 I'm pretty sure he is homophobic because he as made a lot of poor remarks towards gays in the past, and will again in the future.
SamVarriano 10 months ago
@SamVarriano Poor remarks? Since when does someone elses sex life have to be made public? It's none of your buisness, and some of us have a right to believe those activities are reprehensible. And furthermore, commenting "poor remarks" as though biology and the science of procreation dont make sense to you as though you hold moral highground. Tell me, when a man sticks a gerbil in his butt, would you consider that morally right? I'm pretty sure you don't, since cock belongs there instead.
SuperFifthwheel 8 months ago
@Robertjcksn40 Just to let you know that I will soon be deleting the ignorant and offensive comments you made on my channel about a US Vietnam war veteran and amputee. In which book of the Bible did you learn that kind of language?
outofthegreenmist 9 months ago
love the comparison to slave ownership, never thought of it that way. why didn't i hear about this guy more in 08, sharp as a tack.
ccg711 11 months ago
@ccg711
The reason you didn't hear about him is because the media didn't want you to.
BenjaminWirtz 11 months ago
Also, Dostoevsky's argument stated in The Idiot and elsewhere is of interest here. The victim of a murderer almost always has the hope of escape. A person to be executed by the state knows that his death is certain and counts the minutes. For Christians it seems absurd to support capital punishment and they are forced into doing biblical gymnastics to justify it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL seems to sum the death penalty up nicely. It is easier to condemn murder if you don't commit it.
rgs11 1 year ago
I don't think he's necessarily arguing in favor of capital punishment but the distinction between innocent and guilty life. That being said, capital punishment is certainly wrong morally (even if it wasn't true that innocent people have been executed) and makes no financial sense (cheaper to throw away the key). I don't see how Christians can support capital punishment since it leaves no chance for the redemption of the criminal.
rgs11 1 year ago
top dog
Beastajg 1 year ago
does Mr. Keyes eat meat? He should be opposed to it as well! Eating meat is killing innocent lives thus it is a OBJECTIVELY(lol) fundamentally violation of civil rights. I am just looking for some consistency here!
neonaction 1 year ago
I share your concern with political correctness, but that's really a peripheral issue. Anyone can cherry pick particular incidences of government abuse and use them to attack "secularism"--I could do the same thing to underscore the dangers of religion--but that's not an intellectually honest approach. As always, reality is much more complex than that.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
It's hard to imagine Jesus being okay with the death penalty. As for distinguishing between "innocent life" and "guilty life," I've been told by Christians that none of us is innocent--that we are all born with original sin. Beside, if we're "created," then isn't up to the Creator to decide who lives and who dies?
I must be confused.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Yes, you're confused. As humans we're all born in sin and do not deserve eternal life save for the sinless life of Jesus imputed to us by faith. God decides who lives and dies eternally. In the case of capital crime, the God delegates his judgment to earthly judges for them to determine who lives or dies here on earth after committing a capital crime. Executing criminals guilty of capital crimes hastens their judgment by God of their eternal fate.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
You've memorized the party line, I'll give you that...
Again, it's hard to imagine Jesus "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" Christ supporting capital punishment.
I have many Christian friends. Some support the death penalty (using Scripture as a justification), while others oppose it (using Scripture as a justification).
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot It's not a matter of "memorizing the party line." It's a matter of subscribing to it. That takes study. The story of the harlot is a lot more complicated than you imply and should not be used as a justification for excusing all temporal sin. Strictly speaking, the male offender in this case wasn't also brought out for judgment as required in the law. Secondly, the incident was a trap the Pharisees were setting for Jesus. Jesus showed mercy to the harlot yet told her to sin no more.
taiji218 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Read Gary North's "Victim's Rights" for a full exposition of how Biblical law operates. The little sound bites that YouTube offers doesn't do the subject justice. Beware, however. The book has its technical elements and is not an easy read.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
My only point is that there are Christians on both sides of the issue, and they all use the Bible to justify their position.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot In the same way, politicians all use the Constitution to justify their positions. The real issue is whether the use is correct or corrupt. I subscribe to the notion that politicians who claim the Constitution as a "living document" that can be twisted whichever way the politically fashionable winds blow are corrupt, as that goes against the original purpose of the Constitution as a legal "spine" that could only be bent so far before breaking. The use of the Bible is the same.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
The Constitution is, in some respects, a "living document"--as evidenced by the fact that the founders provided a means by which it could be amended. (Keep in mind that the original Constitution contains some problematic parts, such as the infamous "three-fifths compromise.")
Our Constitution is idealistic, and ideals, by their nature, take time to realize. If we had stuck to a "strict constructionist" approach, today only white, land-owning males would be able to vote.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot The amendment procedure is indeed the Constitution is meant to be viewed as a "living document," not the way activist judges try to twist and turn the meaning of it to fit their pet projects. The 3/5 compromise was indeed problematic, but if you read the history of it, it was a way for the North to keep Southern representation down so that slavery as an institution could eventually be eliminated--while at the same time getting the South to approve of the Constitution.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
It's the same situation with the separation of church and state--although the concept is written into the First Amendment, the actual secularization of government has taken time. Again, it's an ideal that has yet to be completely realized. Christianity still remains somewhat entwined with civil authority, but gradually the two are being disentangled.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Ah, this is where you take a corruption as "progress." Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Church was a focus on Federalism: the *national* government was not to *establish* a national church nor endorse a single church: that was a function of the individual States. Thus Maryland was Catholic, Penn. was Quaker, etc. The idea of "secularism" simply replaces the God of the Bible with the God of Government. Obama's campaign was clearly messianiac in portrayal.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
The establishment clause is not simply a prohibition against a "national church"--we know this because such narrow wording was considered by the founders and was rejected. The clause is broad because Jefferson intended it to be broad.
Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was, for its time, quite radical, and underscored that while Jefferson himself was hardly a secular man, he understood that separating civil authority from ecclesiastic authority was best for BOTH.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot The establishment clause--in fact most of the Constitution--is a statement of limitations on the *Federal* government. It is not meant to create limitations on state or local governments, nor on public expression per se.
Jefferson's Virginia Statute wasn't designed to "scrub government clean" of any and all religious references or influences, as contemporary secularists strive to do. We don't have a "secularist litmus test" to disqualify legislators if they adhere to their faith.
taiji218 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Secularists make "man" (i.e. the majority of men or a single man) the source "from whom all blessings flow." Invariably you end up with increasing totalitarianism; either the bloat of our present federal government which tries to make a laws controlling life down to the minutaes, or the aggrandizement of a central government "Man," such as Stalin, Mao or the "Man-Savior" Obama tried to portray himself as being during his campaign. 1,000,000 Laws vs. the 10 Commandments.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
You seem to be conflating secularism and totalitarianism.
The vast majority of secular-minded people I know value democracy and liberty above all else. In any event, one need only look to the theocracies in the Middle East to see religious people are hardly averse to using the state to further their ideologies.
Nor do secularists/humanists worship humanity. We simply acknowledge that no one is going to save us from ourselves, so it's in our best interest to work together.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Secularism invariably moves towards totalitaritarianism. It may take a generation or two or three, but there it goes. Just look at how the EU has been moving, alternating between bureaucratic total control and anarchistic revolt when the "goodies" stop flowing and the bread and circuses are threatened. The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. Middle Eastern theocracies are abhorrently different from a theonomic society, which was the ideal of One Nation Under God.
taiji218 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Secularists don't want to "work together " with people of religious faith. They want religious people to shut up, keep quiet, go to the back of the bus and act in public as though they adhere to the secular vision of humanity--much like the Romans didn't mind Christians so long as they practiced their faith in private and made public sacrifice to the local Roman gods. When Christians insisted on remaining publically Christian, they were condemned--as secularists continue to do today.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
The kind of secularists you refer to are extremists, and it's simplistic to suggest that they are typical. Would it be fair of me to judge Christianity based on the actions of its most aggressive fundamentalists?
Most of my friends are atheists, and not a single one of them has any desire to make religious folk "shut up." What concerns us is when religious people aren't content with just expressing their faith, but feel compelled to use the reins of gov't to promote their faith.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@taiji218
Your comments underscore the sad fact that people harbor all sorts of misconceptions about secularism. For example, most secularists have no desire to impinge upon the religious freedoms of believers; we value freedom of conscience and urge people to think through things for themselves and then express those conclusions. What we DO object to is when people of faith attempt to use civil authority to gain favored status for their particular religion.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Having been a secularist in the past, you're mistaken. You guys don't mind "religious people practicing their religion" so long as they keep to themselves in a religious ghetto outside the public square, like folks in ancient times didn't kill lepers, they kept them isolated outside the city walls. Secularists want to religiously sterilize the public square so that they can impose their law-order and their version of "conscience" on everyone else.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
I'm always amused when people presume to tell me what I believe. :)
I'm not referring to the gung-ho secularists, who are as aggressive and intolerant as the worst fundamentalists. Nor do I envision the public square denuded of religion; I simply don't want the government to play favorites.
Right now, you are free to worship and pray in the public square. And as long as you aren't disturbing the peace, you can witness to others. But this doesn't seem to be enough for many... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot If you label yourself a secularist you assume a public mantle which proclaims tenants of that mantle. If others react to that mantle, you can hardly imply they are presumptuous in "telling you what you believe." The fact is that secularists pray at the alter of a secular god and its law-order, and will not tolerate competing law-orders. While over 85% of the population is professiong Christian, that's irrelevant. They must not vote or express political views tied to faith.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
I'm a secularist to the extent that I wish the government to stay clear of religious matters. I don't envision a world without religion, only one in which people are free to come to their own conclusions without fear of reprisal, a world in which beliefs are arrived at in a free and open environment. I certainly don't wish ANY religious group to be oppressed, no matter how abjectly silly their beliefs might seem to me.
OF COURSE religious faith should inform political views.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@taiji218
It seems you've created a secularist "straw man" that bears little resemblance to most secularists.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Check out the UK Mail story about Martin Gaskell, an astronomer who was denied a job in spite of his being described as 'breathtakingly above the other applicants" because he was a Christian. The Search Committee expressed fears he "may be a creationist." They could easily have hired him with the standard expectation that he not express his religious view while acting as a public representative of the University. Instead they denied him for the thought-crime of being a Christian.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
(cont.)... religious folk; they aren't happy unless they get official government sanction for their particular faith.
As the religious make-up of this country has changed, Christianity is losing its privileged status (finally!), and Christians tend to interpret this emerging government neutrality toward their religion as hostility, even "persecution." But such claims ring hollow.
I disagree that "secularism invariably moves toward totalitarianism." Look, e.g., at Sweden... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Again, it's not just a question of "losing privledged status." It's a question of many secularists treating religious faith as a fundamental disqualifier of a person or a position taken. Take the Christian position that humans are "made in the image of God." That means we *don't* own our bodies, God does. We're supposed to care for them decently and treat them as temples. It also means we see others as "images of God" also. This implies a respect for life that many secularists deny.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
(cont.)... or the Netherlands, extremely secular societies. Both defend free speech and human rights to a degree that puts the U.S. to shame.
Problems invariably emerge when civil authorities attempt to impose particular ideologies (religious or otherwise) on their citizens. And if you look at Christian history, you'll see the same trend: When given the opportunity, Christians are usually willing to use the government to promote their personal beliefs.... (cont.)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot If you look at the Netherlands you'll see that they sanction involuntary euthanasia based on economic considerations. If that isn't an example of secular imposition of values backed by government force I don't know what is. Christian objections have no real public voice. In Sweden the government will kidnap your kids if you attempt to home school them and assign them to foster parents. This is "tolerance" and not the imposition of a moral position?
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
I'm not saying I agree with everything that the government does in those countries. But at least the citizens are free to discuss and debates the issues. Christians in those countries are free to offer objections; the fact that those objections aren't being taken seriously isn't the issue.
I suspect that many believers are bothered by the fact that more and more people are openly and honestly assessing at the claims of religion and finding them less than compelling.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot As a Christian I see a heck of a lot of poor to mediocre descriptions of Christian doctrine being put out there by professed Christian pastors and seeing the social results of that. That is the expected result of apostacy. Some of the apostacy is by lunatic Baptists pushing a heretical "left behind" theology, other apostacy is by liberals attempting to create a PC Christianity. Other, more articulate ministeries such as Ravi Zacharias have rapidly expanding congregations.
taiji218 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot In the name of political correctness, the city of Uppsala responded to the repeated raping of its female Swedish citizens by Muslims from Somalia by criticizing the victims and suggesting that if women didn't want to be raped they wear "less inviting" clothing. Secularists claim to be "tolerant" but in practice that works out to public anti-Christianity while tip-toeing around other religions.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
(cont.)... Our founders looked at the sectarian conflicts which ravaged Europe for centuries and realized that the best thing that gov't can do is stay out of religious matters completely. Religion should never be imposed from above; it should emerge organically as a conscious decision by individual believers.
I have no desire to "impose" anything on my fellow citizens. On matters of conscience, we should all be free to come to our own conclusions, without gov't coercion.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot In one respect, we're in agreement. Theonomic Christianity claims that any attempt to "steal the robes" by imposing its views top-down from the government to the people is heretical. That is known as "theocracy" and is what happens, for example in Islamic societies. Theonomy uses the bottom-up "mustard seed" approach, which starts at individual government, moves to the family, and emerges organically upwards. This involves civil government but starts locally and grows from there.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
Yes, I think we are in agreement on that point. It all comes down to what our founders called "freedom of conscience," and in my opinion it is an inviolable right.
Again, the problem emerges when a government, or religious institutions in cahoots with civil authority, decide to impose a particular ideology upon its citizenry--when a certain "party line" becomes the only acceptable viewpoint.
I
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Laws by their nature are expressions of their underlying morality. Morality either comes from religious faith or it comes from some substitution thereof. Governments can't "stay out of religious matters completely." Taxes have a religious basis. Crime and punishment have religious bases. Even monatary policy is religiuosly based. The Bible insists on "honest weights and measures." This prohibits the government from inflating or "monetizing" the currency base to pay off its debts.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
Morality is another issue altogether, and also extremely complex.
Unfortunately, I have to sign off. Perhaps we can pick up this discussion at a later time? I've very much enjoying our back-and-forth. :)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot I've been enjoying it as well. I suspect we'd have a good coversation over a Sam Adams or two if we were to meet in the real (as opposed to the virtual) world. :-)
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
I'm thinking we would. And we'd have at least one point of agreement: Sam Adams is a fine beer. :)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@taiji218
"I'M very much enjoying..." My proofreading skills are atrophying... :)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@taiji218
For its time, the U.S. Constitution was a radical, visionary document, and it remains so even today. And it is most radical in its insistence that the federal government remain secular. Much to the chagrin of Christians at the time, the document acknowledges no gods and no holy books, and explicitly bans the use of religious tests for public office. It is neutral on matters of faith.
The result has been a country in which religion flourishes like nowhere else.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot The Constitution's vision follows the vision of the Declaration. The Bill of Rights presumes the "inalienable rights" articulated in the Declaration. Law orders presume a higher legitimacy. If the Constitution isn't claiming its legitimacy from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration, than it's claiming as "god" the "people," which is absurd. The Framers abhored democracy, seeing it correctly as mob rule under the sway of demogogues. The "balance of powers" assumes original sin.
taiji218 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot It's not quite accurate to say that only males had the vote. It originally was "one vote per household," which meant that the man as the "spokesperson" of the family did the voting. But if the man was away or dead, the wife or widow voted as the voice of the household. The idea behind land ownership was that the voters needed to have a vested interest in the country. Landless immigrants typically had greater loyalty to their home country than to the U.S. We still have that problem.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
Agreed. However, my initial point remains: The Constitution is a set of ideals that can only be realized gradually over time.
For example, allowing women and blacks to vote and to hold office is an actualization of the ideal of equality inherent in our founding documents--even though, to most of those living in late 18th century America, such a reality would have been unthinkable.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot Agreed there also. In the same way, the Bible holds to certain ideals that can only be realized gradually over time--such is the meaning behind the parable of the mustard seed.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
I can't speak about the Bible. I'm happy to let Christians hash that out for themselves. :)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
guilty life? what defines someone as guilty, someone who has commited a crime. people have been sentenced to death without ever commiting a crime, but i guess it doesnt matter, as long as the judge thinks your guilty, then its ok for you to die.
totallysickawesome 1 year ago
@totallysickawesome The definition of capital crimes is extensively spelled out in the Bible. Yes, some innocent people invariably are wrongly convicted and then wrongly executed. By far the opposite occurs, where the guilty go unpunished. In the case of the innocent wrongly executed, their eternal fate would be determined by the mercy of God, whereas those people who wrongly convicted and executed that person face the eternal justice (wrath) of God. Jesus was wrongly executed.
taiji218 1 year ago
Well... scientifically speaking a fetus actually isn't a developed human being, if you take it out of the womb, it cannot survive by itself. Not only that but I believe you are infringing upon the rights of women if you make abortion illegal; they should and can do what they want with their body even if that includes abortion. Not only that but if abortion is criminalized all that will result is women risking infection/death when they attempt aborting in other ways instead of safely with doctors
MilkNCrayons 1 year ago
@MilkNCrayons It doesn't matter if it is a developed human being or not, it is still a human being. And since it is a human being it deserves the right not to be murdered.
relaxingmusic101 1 year ago
@MilkNCrayons Well, scientifically speaking, a six week old baby isn't a developed human being either. If you take it out of its parents or other human protection, it cannot survive by itself. By your definition, a human isn't qualified not to be executed until after it's completed college and has a job.
taiji218 1 year ago
what if we develop the technology to determaine what a fetus will do as an adult in the womb? And we can know who is a future serial killer, or child molester, or adolph hitler. Then what. Not abort? I dont think so. Morality is the last baston of a coward-
zatoichi1969 1 year ago
@zatoichi1969 Capital punishment follow capital behavior, not capital inclanations. We will *never* develop any technology that will "determine what a fetus will do as an adult." The human genome is far more complex than that. In terms of epigenetics, we are a complex interaction of gene potentials, environmental influences and personal choices. I work with plenty of people who are genetically loaded to be schizophrenic, yet choose not to act out those tendencies, sometimes w/ great effrort.
taiji218 1 year ago
@zatoichi1969 I see it the other way: the resistence to morality is the first and last bastion of a coward. By the way, are you aware the label of "coward" is a moral label? Many folks fancy themselves "brave" by going against the moral standards of their parents or of other authority figures. This just shows the "courage" of the adolescent who has yet to grow up. Adults have moral positions. Some are well thought out, some are not. An adult's job is to work these things out for him or herself.
taiji218 1 year ago
Abortion is necessary in certain circumstances, and I believe is moral if those circumstances are significant enough and if the developing embryo does not yet "resemble" a baby. I mean, how far back do you go? By using a condom you prevent the sperm and egg meeting - that's preventing life! A developing embryo is, to start with, just a ball of multiplying cells, and should not be considered a full human until it reaches further development. Capital punishment is state- sponsored murder.
5LJ3A2 1 year ago
@5LJ3A2 "Murder" by definition is killing outside the bounds of the law. State-sanctioned killing by definition is not murder. A drug dealer who shoots a man in the street is acting outside the law, so that killing is defined as murder. The police officer who kills the drug dealer in a shootout is killing the drug dealer within the bounds of the law--so by definition such killing is not murder. A legitimate state execution is not murder by definition. Get your terms straight.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218 Names and definitions are somewhat irrelevant when considering morality, though yes, I agree that under the law of nations that practice capital punishment, it is not considered murder. However, I believe it should be seen as such.
5LJ3A2 1 year ago
@5LJ3A2 Au contraire: names and definitions are supremely relevant when considering morality; otherwise words can be twisted to fit the fashion of whatever group is in power. The Soviets routinely executed people for the "thought-crime" of disagreeing with the State; others in this country are denied jobs for the thought-crime of adhering to Christianity.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218 Fair enough, I should have made my point clearer in that regard.
5LJ3A2 1 year ago
@5LJ3A2 Regarding your view that capital punishment be seen as murder or "illegal killing," my question is this: first, upon what do you make that as a moral claim? Second: do you believe that someone who at age 23 butchers a family of four deserves to live at a taxpayer cost of $35-$55,000 a year for the next 50-60 years? Where is the morality in that? Do you believe he should be released to kill again after 10-15 years, now with an "advanced degree" in criminal behavior and compassion?
taiji218 1 year ago
There too much narcissism on that stage for the world to handle. Keyes is still awesome. He's very good at public speaking and that's without a teleprompter.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
I don't give a rats ass about other people's babies, but we are on the same page regarding killing killers.
tsafa1 1 year ago
Malcolm Lol.
markkuwerkko 1 year ago
AMEN!! Truth!
xukeith33 1 year ago
this guy is the truth
stfjoewms 1 year ago
alan keyes is a pseudo-intellect. and he is an idiot.
the question of morality as applied to the DP is a violation against the division of church and state. it is a question of ethics, not morality. and ETHICALLY, i do not give a fuck what ratzass excuse me ratzinger says, it is wrong to flip the switch to kill another person, even if they killed someone else.
djalternegro 1 year ago
@djalternegro You're making a false distinction between ethics and morality. Upon what are you basing your "ethical" claim that capital punishment is wrong? Is it more "ethical" to allow a 23 year old who's butchered a family of four to live at taxpayer expense of $35-55,000/yr for 50-60 years, a total of $1,750,000 to $3,300,000 out of taxpayers' pockets? Or should we release him after 10-15 years with an "advanced degree" in criminal thinking and behavior? You want this guy next door to you?
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
gosh i hate it when people talk about things they don't understand. o.k. um first of all ethics and morals ARE different SILLY, that is why they are two different words representing 2 different ideas. to put it in simple terms morals are like saying "what would jesus do?" ethics are like "what would you
do when you intrinsically know and understand the difference between right and wrong irrespective of what mommy or daddy or church says, i.e..." okay so that is point number one. ..
djalternegro 1 year ago
@djalternegro Ignoring your belittling and insulting innuemdos, you take the humanistic assumption that ehics are "self-determined" and therefore "mature" whereas morals (as you define them) are simply introjected from "mommy and daddy" and are therefore "immature." That again is an attempt at humanistic oneupsmanship. It denies the idea that one's "self-determined ethics" could be psychological resistences from one's parents' values; it assumes that "self-determined ethics" are de facto "good."
taiji218 1 year ago
@djalternegro "Self-defined ethics" assume that one man's an another man's "ethics" will be at least similar enough that they can operate alongside of each other. But what if I make a "self-determined ethical" decision that I deserve what you have because you have more than I do and so I deserve to take enough to make it "fair" and "equal" according to my "ethical" calculus? The entire assumption that "self-determined = ethical" is bogus. I've seen many immature and cruel "self-determined" folk.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218
secondly to answer your question upon what am i basing...blah blah... the ETHICAL foundation for ANY type of punishment is two fold: to prevent acts that require punishment, and to provide an offender the opportunity to reflect upon his or her bad behavior. capital punishment does neither. it is a great example of an EYE for an EYE. but an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. you are reducing your argument to questions of money or economics....
djalternegro 1 year ago
@djalternegro Another basis for "punishment" if you will is restitution to the victim. The "eye for an eye" formula is simply a metaphor that the punishment must fit the crime. If a person takes out the eye of another, the victim can claim *only* an eye's worth of punishment in return (it doesn't have to be a literal eye; it could be "an eye's worth" of monetary compensation). It prohibits "a life for an eye" kind of punishment that is far in excess of the injustice. Go past the superficial!
taiji218 1 year ago
@djalternegro The meaning of "an eye for an eye" in connection with capital punishment is that if a person is convicted of murder, the victim's family can claim only the murderer's life; it cannot go after the killer's family or clan. The idea was to prevent the blood feuds that were common in ancient times--and common these days as well where society has started to break down. Another purpose of capital punishment is to protect society from the killer. It works every time it's used.
taiji218 1 year ago
@taiji218 and not even sticking with the question of ethics OR EVEN morals...i have zero respect for that because it shows weakness. instead of talking about god, morals, OR ethics, just say you are unwilling to pay for criminals and leave your beliefs and convictions out of it because they clearly have nothing to do with it.
as for as this guy living next door to me, i am the wrong person to ask because i think i can learn from anyone. anyway i will talk to you when cp actually prevents.
djalternegro 1 year ago
@djalternegro You're right on that one: I'm unwilling to pay for unrepentent murderers to live off the public dime. My morals have everything to do with it. That money can be spent in much more productive ways. You forget that money equals a man's time, which equals portions of his life earning that money. If it's a choice between paying for an unrepentent murderer to live versus paying that money to feed the poor, I say feed the poor. Money's not unlimited. You seem to assume it is.
taiji218 1 year ago
sorry im not impressed, heard it all before, peace and love
tbonea1dam1 1 year ago
@tbonea1dam1
agreed. peace and love.
people like alan keyes cuz he has a large
vocabulary and uses big words correctly, but
he is just an idiot. a sophist.
djalternegro 1 year ago
slave and fetus analogy is just... wow.. just terribly misleading. But most people have their own opinion already before they listen to anything, they would welcome any smart sounding analogy
neonaction 1 year ago