Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 We LDS, generally, believe in the justice of capital punishment. Sometimes our critics mock theChurch by bringing up "blood atonement" or pointing out the fact that capital punishment inUtah used to include death by firing squad.Yet today, I hear many lauding the death of Osama bin Laden as a final step of justice for thosekilled on 9/11. Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capitalpunishment for heinous crimes in our country.Is this consistent?Not to speak up for OBL, may he not rest in peace, but he had no trial and no conviction by a jury,yet was given the death sentence. Can one oppose the death penalty in all other cases except this one?Bernard
Calm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capitalpunishment for heinous crimes in our country.Is this consistent?I noticed this too.
frankenstein Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 We LDS, generally, believe in the justice of capital punishment. Sometimes our critics mock theChurch by bringing up "blood atonement" or pointing out the fact that capital punishment inUtah used to include death by firing squad.Yet today, I hear many lauding the death of Osama bin Laden as a final step of justice for thosekilled on 9/11. Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capitalpunishment for heinous crimes in our country.Is this consistent?Not to speak up for OBL, may he not rest in peace, but he had no trial and no conviction by a jury,yet was given the death sentence. Can one oppose the death penalty in all other cases except this one?Bernardshouldn't you be asking this of those who oppose the death penalty.
Hayds Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 shouldn't you be asking this of those who oppose the death penalty.I thnk there are 2 types of people you are describing.1. Those who are against capital punishment in any form including killing Bin Laden.2. Those who are pro capital punishment and mock Mormons not for their belief in capital punishment, but the flawed concept of blood atonement which goes against the basic tenants of Christianity and Christ's sacrifice. The church no longer teaches blood atonement as doctrine.
Hayds Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Oops! My response was meant for the OP and not frankentstein.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 shouldn't you be asking this of those who oppose the death penalty.There are some here who have voiced opposition to the death penalty. I'm hopingthey will respond.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 I thnk there are 2 types of people you are describing.1. Those who are against capital punishment in any form including killing Bin Laden.2. Those who are pro capital punishment and mock Mormons not for their belief in capital punishment, but the flawed concept of blood atonement which goes against the basic tenants of Christianity and Christ's sacrifice. The church no longer teaches blood atonement as doctrine.I haven't heard anything from the 1st group yet, and the 2nd group does not interest me in any way.Actually, I'm describing a 3rd kind....those who oppose the death penalty in this countryyet cheer the death of Bin Laden by firing squad. Is that a consistent position to take? If so,explain.Bernard
BCSpace Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Yet today, I hear many lauding the death of Osama bin Laden as a final step of justice for thosekilled on 9/11. Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capitalpunishment for heinous crimes in our country.Is this consistent?No. It's also not consistent with the Gospel to be opposed to capital punishment for murder.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 I noticed this too.Have you heard anything from the anti-death penalty crowd?Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 No. It's also not consistent with the Gospel to be opposed to capital punishment for murder.Explain...Bernard
Hayds Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I haven't heard anything from the 1st group yet, and the 2nd group does not interest me in any way.Actually, I'm describing a 3rd kind....those who oppose the death penalty in this countryyet cheer the death of Bin Laden by firing squad. Is that a consistent position to take? If so,explain.BernardThe 3rd kind you speak of may seem a littly hypocritical, but in many viewpoints there are always exceptions to the rule. OBL caused a lot of blood shed and strife and naturally people have strong emotions about him. Even hippies.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 The 3rd kind you speak of may seem a littly hypocritical, but in many viewpoints there are always exceptions to the rule. OBL caused a lot of blood shed and strife and naturally people have strong emotions about him. Even hippies.Is there an "evil" quotient that must be exceeded for, say, hippies to approve of the death penalty? It seems OBL has passed thethreshold. Bernard
BCSpace Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 No. It's also not consistent with the Gospel to be opposed to capital punishment for murder.Explain...Simple. At some point, there are somehow enough heinous killings to finally rouse one's jaded mind to make one a convert of the death penalty for a particular case. Where does one draw the line? Why not draw it at one or two?For the second, Genesis 9:6 is part of the Gospel law, being outside the law of Moses. Reaffirmed in modern scripture.
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 Simple. At some point, there are somehow enough heinous killings to finally rouse one's jaded mind to make one a convert of the death penalty for a particular case. Where does one draw the line? Why not draw it at one or two?For the second, Genesis 9:6 is part of the Gospel law, being outside the law of Moses. Reaffirmed in modern scripture.That's what has me puzzled. There is such vehement opposition to the death penalty in some quarters. Even Charles Manson'sdepravities didn't get him the needle. But no one has taken up OBL's cause. Seems strangely inconsistent to me.Bernard
TAO Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'm iffy on capital punishment... some cases yes, some cases no. I'm sad people are celebrating for a death though. Yeah, maybe he did deserve it, but it doesn't mean you celebrate it =/.
frankenstein Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I am opposed to the death penalty and I have a Temple recommend so naner-naner. As for OBL, did he go for a gun and whoever (Navy Seal) was defending himself...I don't know, that seems to be the story being stuck too. Is a person who is unarmed but wages a constant violent war always fair game during a "war", regardless of where that person may be found I think so. So I don't think this is really a death penalty issue. He was killed in a military action during wartime.
frankenstein Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 That's what has me puzzled. There is such vehement opposition to the death penalty in some quarters. Even Charles Manson'sdepravities didn't get him the needle. But no one has taken up OBL's cause. Seems strangely inconsistent to me.BernardManson was scheduled but then the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional so is Manson really a fair example to use?
Bernard Gui Posted May 6, 2011 Author Posted May 6, 2011 Manson was scheduled but then the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional so is Manson really a fair example to use?But then it was ruled constitutional....where are the opponents and how do they stand with OBL?Bernard
BCSpace Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Manson was scheduled but then the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional so is Manson really a fair example to use?Of course it is. The ruling was orchestrated by the anti death penalty crowd so we are still talking about the same kinds of people.
Calm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Have you heard anything from the anti-death penalty crowd?BernardIn explanation, nope.This has a few thoughtful replies on it...http://answers.yahoo...04192743AACOxq4Can't find any real commentary on it though.
Mark Beesley Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 So I don't think this is really a death penalty issue. He was killed in a military action during wartime.Exactly. It's apples and oranges.
Calm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Exactly. It's apples and oranges.Was there any intention of taking him alive if the opportunity presented itself? Any attempt to use weapons that would disable or give them a chance to surrender? If not, it seems more of an assassination than a typical military action.
Questing Beast Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Osama bin Laden was a rabid animal, his very existence a threat of death to millions. To find him and take him down was a mercy and justice. In such cases death of the killer is fully justified, without trial or compunction. His crimes were known to the entire Western World. that world has moved far away from the justified killing ethic. You don't wait, you go in and take the killer down. If in the process he happens to survive, then you put him on trial, find him guilty as charged then take him out.Injustice is when a killer is granted a stay of venue, such that he could possibly escape and wreak more mayhem. Injustice is making his victims (those surviving his earlier assaults) live in constant anguish over the injustice and fear of the future.How is sparing a killer more just than putting an end to the horrified suspense of his victims?...
ERayR Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Actually, I'm describing a 3rd kind....those who oppose the death penalty in this countryyet cheer the death of Bin Laden by firing squad. Is that a consistent position to take? If so,explain.BernardThis is pretty much the same group that oppose the death penalty and are pro abortion. Their inconsistancies baffle me.
ERayR Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Osama bin Laden was a rabid animal, his very existence a threat of death to millions. To find him and take him down was a mercy and justice. In such cases death of the killer is fully justified, without trial or compunction. His crimes were known to the entire Western World. that world has moved far away from the justified killing ethic. You don't wait, you go in and take the killer down. If in the process he happens to survive, then you put him on trial, find him guilty as charged then take him out.Injustice is when a killer is granted a stay of venue, such that he could possibly escape and wreak more mayhem. Injustice is making his victims (those surviving his earlier assaults) live in constant anguish over the injustice and fear of the future.How is sparing a killer more just than putting an end to the horrified suspense of his victims?...I agree but how does this differ for run of the mill murderers? What about serial killers?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.