The Fate of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
370

[quote]hspder wrote:

  1. Christ died in the Cross to pay for our sins, and, with that, started a “New Covenant”, that overturned many, if not all, aspects of The Law (as proclaimed in the Old Testament) and is based, fundamentally, on concepts of forgiveness, love, and not judging others (leaving only for God the “privilege” of judgment and revenge) – basically making your quotes from Exodus (Old Testament) irrelevant for Christians, as they are overturned by the New Covenant.[/quote]

Under this absolutism, you would negate any and all forms of punishment, from traffic fines to imprisonment. I think common sense would need to be applied here.

Well, the provision may be timeless, but it must be read with some context.

After all, the Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill” - does that mean just people? It doesn’t say. Does it extend to animals, thereby demanding vegetarianism?

What about killing someone in self-defense? Read literally, there is no exception to this. What about fighting in war?

So, if you want to say that context shouldn’t be applied, it leads to some silly results that don’t square with Christianity since Christianity was formed.

Moreover, as an exercise, it is very much morally objectionable if I took you, Hspdr, and locked you into an 8x8 cell, against your will, for the rest of your life, never to enjoy freedom again. No one disputes that this is morally wrong.

But, if you get put into an 8x8 cell as imprisonment for breaking the law, no one finds it morally objectionable.

Trying to determine the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Commandment without the necessary context would lead you to reject all punishment - as in, if imprisoning someone against their will is wrong, why is it therefore ok in the context of punishment? I mean, wrong is wrong, no matter what the context, right?

You believe that? Me neither.

371

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
said that the specific context of those remarks, and certain other very specific pronouncements he made, was to address problems going on in that congregation at the time. Once again, going on memory here, but I believe he said there was a specific problem in the Corinthian church, evidenced from other contemporary sources, of women speaking/socializing during the services, which some people (including, apparently, Paul) thought was irreverent. The “submission”, I believe, was to God, and was referencing the services.[/quote]

If that is so, what is the purpose of referring to women specifically? Wouldn’t it make more sense to refer to everybody, women and men? Wouldn’t men speaking/socializing during the services be equally irreverent, and referring to women specifically (singling them out) be a misogynist gesture in itself? Especially considering that he was supposed to be a channel for God’s message, to be written for posterity, and, hence, apply in any context, rather than specifically right then and there?

That statement can be construed as the very definition of sexism: using the behavior of a few members of a gender in a limited context to generalize and judge all members of the same gender, arguably in all contexts (since it does not refer to specific individuals, but generally to women).

Anyway, my purpose is not to attack Paul or the Bible. That’s a completely different discussion, and one that is pretty much pointless, as any discussion about faith. In matters of faith, it’s up to you to choose what to believe in. My point was that the language is so imprecise and has been translated to many different ways that in fact Paul’s statements can be interpreted in many, many ways and you just made it, so… :slight_smile:

372

As I said, language is always going to be imprecise to a certain degree, especially on its face – that’s why context is so important if you’re actually attempting to parse the meaning of something in particular. Kind of like original intent, actually… =-)

373

[quote]BigMike wrote:
I HAD A FEELING Arnold have a bias view , but damn…[/quote]

I’m sorry… but that is hilarious! Well done!

374

This thread has

JUMPED THE SHARK

ps hspdr:
Now I know how vroom must feel when you guys misquote and misinterpret his posts. My OJ thing was never to imply PC was the reason for his acquittal. Glad it helped you overcome your stupidity to the good prof.

375

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hspder wrote:

  1. Christ died in the Cross to pay for our sins, and, with that, started a “New Covenant”, that overturned many, if not all, aspects of The Law (as proclaimed in the Old Testament) and is based, fundamentally, on concepts of forgiveness, love, and not judging others (leaving only for God the “privilege” of judgment and revenge) – basically making your quotes from Exodus (Old Testament) irrelevant for Christians, as they are overturned by the New Covenant.

Under this absolutism, you would negate any and all forms of punishment, from traffic fines to imprisonment. I think common sense would need to be applied here.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure Jesus wasn’t thinking about traffic violations, but your point is taken.[quote]

  1. The words in the New Testament are supposed to come from God, and hence, as God, be eternal, and hence devoid of historical context.

Well, the provision may be timeless, but it must be read with some context.

After all, the Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill” - does that mean just people? It doesn’t say. Does it extend to animals, thereby demanding vegetarianism? [/quote]

Actually, funny story, but the Book Of the Twelve, which some believe to be the TRUE teachings of Jesus, DOES require vegetarianism.[quote]

What about killing someone in self-defense? Read literally, there is no exception to this. What about fighting in war?[/quote]

Self-defense is a valid umm, defense, but WAR? How do you even put the two together. I think it’s a given that God is against war, unless in self-defense. Does pre-emptive count?[quote]

So, if you want to say that context shouldn’t be applied, it leads to some silly results that don’t square with Christianity since Christianity was formed[/quote]

Forbidding war is a silly result that doesn’t square with Christianity? Maybe you’re half-right on that.[quote]

Moreover, as an exercise, it is very much morally objectionable if I took you, Hspdr, and locked you into an 8x8 cell, against your will, for the rest of your life, never to enjoy freedom again. No one disputes that this is morally wrong.

But, if you get put into an 8x8 cell as imprisonment for breaking the law, no one finds it morally objectionable.[/quote]

Some actually do find this morally objectionable, but cannot find another alternative, if there is one.
Maybe that SHOULD have been mentioned in the Bible, but wait, the guys who wrote it like the idea of prison and capital punishment. So forever more…[quote]

Trying to determine the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” Commandment without the necessary context would lead you to reject all punishment - as in, if imprisoning someone against their will is wrong, why is it therefore ok in the context of punishment? I mean, wrong is wrong, no matter what the context, right?

You believe that? Me neither.[/quote]

How does “Thou shall not kill”, standing alone, equate to rejecting all punishment? I can see your point based on the first paragraph about forgiveness and not judging and such, but that has nothing to do with the Commandments.

Maybe Jesus came because we fucked up the first set of rules so bad, that somebody else was sent to straighten things out. Then guess what, we fucked those up too. Then maybe Mohammed was given a chance to fix it. We see were that is going. So, maybe we’re just a fucked up species that can’t live together, or will we get another chance?

Or maybe it’s all just bullshit.

376

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I disagree. I don’t think the passage is premised on any divine right of princes or kings. I think those were the examples he used because those were the rulers during the time period.[/quote]

And that was the concept they were viewed in. If a king walked down the street, people would bow to him. People WAVE at President Bush…if they don’t “boo” him. It very much seems like honor to the crown, not some blanket statement covering all forms of government from then until eternity. A previous poster also brought up the New Testament which does lead us to asking what the cut off point is for even the referral to the power “the prince”.

[quote]
And I don’t see any implication whatsoever in the fact that we vote in people who pass laws, versus having someone who was born, or who conquered, his way into power as the authority for making laws. In either case, you have civil authorities making laws for the governance of society.[/quote]

In one, you have “the crown” making laws. Our system of government is SUPPOSED to be for the people and by the people. It is a rather large difference. You simply choose to see that passage as all encompassing.

[quote]
Aside from that, Rome’s Senate and assembly continued to pass laws, even during the imperial era. Caesar was the head of government, but not the sole voice of lawmaking or decisions. This was the government under which Paul lived.[/quote]

This was a very good point, however, you would still have to show how “Thou shalt not kill” somehow means “except for those who kill people…you can kill them”. Even in that system of government, it isn’t like the power was truly with the people of Rome.

[quote]
This actually plays to my overall analysis. If capital punishment were so widely used, and if it were supposed to be a violation of the laws of God, one would think it would be explicitly stated. In fact, one would think Paul would have, in this very section, called the rulers out for widespread violations. But he explicitly states their use of the sword to punish evid deeds is complimentary to God’s purposes.

Professor X wrote:

If it is, then this:

“Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

…is where our message ends and adding more onto it becomes a political exercise ignoring what was written.

Once again, per the analysis from the article above, this can’t be ripped out of the context of the passage. It necessarily is read with what came immediately afterward, which was the part concerning the prince using the sword against evildoers.[/quote]

This is no different, again, than cops with guns. Defending yourself against evil is much different than punishment by death. The two don’t go hand in hand.

It says “Revenge NOT yourselves”, not “Seek revenge and kill those with vengeful punishment until they die”. It specifically says “Revenge NOT yourselves” which does imply fighting evil but not doling out retribution in the form of death for past crimes.

You also have to consider the power that a king had to portray. I doubt you could maintain power over groups of people that large with absolutely no shows of force. That may be the one reason “the prince” was given that power at the time. It was almost necessary. It isn’t now.

377

Boston, Thunder, my post was standalone. A thinking point about interpretation – as there are parallels.

I don’t have a horse in the race when it comes down to the death penalty itself.

However, again, there are many interesting things to think about, because it highlights inconsistencies and hypocrisies all over the place.

People often claim that life isn’t fair and that if bad things happen to you that is simply too bad.

So, yes, individually, we all want vengeance, but we’ve given up that right to live in a society ruled by law. This is great most of the time unless we are personally severely wronged.

Whether or not we personally want the death of the perpetrator has no bearing on the issue at all. We don’t have a “right” of imposing the death penalty, not even if we are the victim. In some places it is the legal final result of some crimes though.

However, the victims “right” to justice is the emotional stance used to argue for the death penalty from time to time, from people who aren’t victimized in any direct way.

In another direction we have the view that all life is sacred. However, due to the actions of the person gifted with that life, we get to decide that a particular life is in fact not sacred. If life is sacred, obviously for religious reasons, how do we get to step in and decide otherwise.

So, basically, we make laws and rules and then ignore them at will. We get all upset about religious imperatives and we ignore them at will as well.

This issue just highlights a lot of interesting behavior in humanity in general… I’m not even criticising anything or anyone.

I’m sure there are plenty of other twists and inconsistencies revealed by ultimate issues such as this.

378

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Did you actually just compare putting someone to death to getting 2 shots at the line for being hacked while driving the lane? Just want to be clear here…[/quote]
Word.

379

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
In principle, one could choose to be offended or make a “misogynist” interpretation, but that would be a choide - and require taking it out of context.[/quote]

I think we’re going in circles here. If you argue that context is so important, you have to logically accept that if the context changes dramatically, the statements are then basically invalid – only statements that apply to contexts that still exist (i.e., UNIVERSAL love and forgiveness) can still be valid.

So, why do you accept that logic for Paul’s statements regarding the behavior of women, why not accept that his statements in regards to punishment only applied in the specific context they were stated in, and are – equally – invalid today?

380

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
My OJ thing was never to imply PC was the reason for his acquittal. Glad it helped you overcome your stupidity to the good prof.[/quote]

That’s pretty funny – because if you read what you wrote, you said EXACTLY what you now say you didn’t.

You said:

“Political Correctness=Free OJ”

Tell me how is that not implying that PC was the reason for acquittal – or did you skip the class where they taught you what the ‘=’ sign means?

(in fact, equalization is even stronger than implication!)

By the way, for the sake of the argument, having an opinion that is different from somebody else’s, or even misinterpreting something that was not clearly explained is not being stupid; insulting other people and taking cheap shots in order to divert attention from yourself and a very clear statement… is.

381

Death Penalty is rubbish. It’s the easy way out. I would much rather die than have to spend the rest of my life in a cell.

382

Holy shit, if I ever hear that argument again I’m going to flip out.

How the fuck do you have ANY clue what either of those choices are like? Have you ever had to choose between life in prison and death? Have you ever spent a single fucking DAY in prison? Have you ever faced the possibility of execution? You have no clue in the slightest what it’s like. No one has ANY precedent whatsoever to say whether or not life in prison is better or worse than death unless they themselves have had to face the choice.

Furthermore, life in prison is easy? Do you know how most murderes are treated in prison? In super-max inmates spend 23 hours a day in their cells. In maximum security, it’s probably not far off. Unless prison includes three DELICIOUS square meals a day, more than one hour of free time, TV, computers, internet access and women, I can’t really say that prison is a dandy place to be.

As for the original argument, notwithstanding my hatred of the death penalty, Tookie should’ve been granted clemency. His books kept thousands of kids and adults from joining gangs. He’s received over 15,000 e-mails alone, not counting letters, from people whose lives were changed. If even half of those people would never have been “saved” so to speak and they each killed one person as a result of their actions, that’s 7,500 people’s lives saved. I think that’s worth fucking clemency. Motherfucking republicans…

383

dan, your math is bullshit. Tookies 330 childrens books didn’t save any lives.

For the real story on the protest at Tookies execution check out this link.
This is not what they showed us on the news, but the photographic proof looks pretty real to me.

It is pretty eye opening to see the fruit cakes that support Tookie.

Anytime I find myself on the same side of an issue as these people I would rethink my position.

http://www.zombietime.com/tookie/

384

come on Dan

I’ll base my judgement on the 4 lives we know he’s taken over the 7,500 you claim he may have impacted.

When were these e-mails received? Through the years to express gratitude or last minute pitches to save a murderer’s life.

385

The guy is dead and gone already… ?

We’ll never know what he really did or didn’t do for people with the books and emails.

We also shouldn’t point to fringe cases and decide that they indicate value or lack thereof in an argument.

Hell, I’m not trying to support any efforts on behalf of the guy here, but at least try to stick to reasonable arguments.

It’s kind of sad to see propaganda being thrown around still.

386

[quote]vroom wrote:
The guy is dead and gone already… ?

We’ll never know what he really did or didn’t do for people with the books and emails.

[/quote]

We know he shot 4 people.

387

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
As for the original argument, notwithstanding my hatred of the death penalty, Tookie should’ve been granted clemency. His books kept thousands of kids and adults from joining gangs. He’s received over 15,000 e-mails alone, not counting letters, from people whose lives were changed. If even half of those people would never have been “saved” so to speak and they each killed one person as a result of their actions, that’s 7,500 people’s lives saved. I think that’s worth fucking clemency. Motherfucking republicans…[/quote]

So let’s say those four people shot by Tookie had been your mom, dad, brother and sister.

I’m not trying to goad you here, I’m just trying to reset that “value” of four innocent lives you have erroneously placed underneath that of Tookie’s one life. We all understand that there is such a thing as atonement and so forth, but this only works if you can say you’re sorry to the victims of your crime and those victims forgive you.

That’s gonna be tough to pull off for a murder victim.

If you believe in atonement and forgiveness, then the one crime you cannot accept is murder… plain and simple. There’s no way to forgive someone for killing you instantly in cold blood.

I suppose that gurgling noise one of the victims was making which Tookie was mocking in jail was the victim trying to say “… it’s okay, go ahead and take that 100 bucks, and don’t worry about me, I was going to off myself later tonight anyway…”

388

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
As for the original argument, notwithstanding my hatred of the death penalty, Tookie should’ve been granted clemency. His books kept thousands of kids and adults from joining gangs. He’s received over 15,000 e-mails alone, not counting letters, from people whose lives were changed. If even half of those people would never have been “saved” so to speak and they each killed one person as a result of their actions, that’s 7,500 people’s lives saved. I think that’s worth fucking clemency. Motherfucking republicans…

So let’s say those four people shot by Tookie had been your mom, dad, brother and sister.

I’m not trying to goad you here, I’m just trying to reset that “value” of four innocent lives you have erroneously placed underneath that of Tookie’s one life. We all understand that there is such a thing as atonement and so forth, but this only works if you can say you’re sorry to the victims of your crime and those victims forgive you.

That’s gonna be tough to pull off for a murder victim.

If you believe in atonement and forgiveness, then the one crime you cannot accept is murder… plain and simple. There’s no way to forgive someone for killing you instantly in cold blood.

I suppose that gurgling noise one of the victims was making which Tookie was mocking in jail was the victim trying to say “… it’s okay, go ahead and take that 100 bucks, and don’t worry about me, I was going to off myself later tonight anyway…”
[/quote]

Fuck Him! He is not worth the breath we are giving him! An eye for an eye!

390

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

However, I still feel that racial implications complicate things alot. I don’t think its as easy to say, “Let’s kill’em” when they aren’t black gangbangers, but white middle classers.[/quote]

Move to Texas, then you don’t have to worry about that bullshit. We kill 'em all.