Capital Punishment

[whitehall]

If you want to get an idea of Capital Punishment in the United States you need to study the American justice system. Capital Punishment has been upheld in several Supreme Court decisions. If you want us to write your paper go somewhere else. I guess they feed their serious Scottish offenders to Nessie or let them rot in prison eating crappy Scottish food for the rest of their lives. Anybody ever go to a good Scottish restaurant? I rest my case.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I favor the death penalty even though:

1) I do not believe it is a deterrent. It is not carried out quickly enough or uniformly enough to be a deterrent.
2) It is more expensive than jailing someone for life.
3) Even with our checks and balances and layers of review, we will wind up executing people who are not guilty of the crime we are executing them for. We are only human - we make mistakes.

The reason I favor the death penalty for the most heinous crimes is:
If we as a society DO NOT do this, it will prompt justifiably enraged family members to do it themselves without the safeguards of rules of evidence or judicial review. I think we function better as a society if we can tell the victim's family, "Stand down. We will take care of this for you."

The problem with that,is we know we have killed innocent people,we let them off death rows all the time.

No one is innocent - we are all human and we have all made mistakes.
I did acknowledge that as long as we enforce a death penalty, we will wind up executing people who are not guilty of the crime we are executing them for. We are human beings, the fact that we are incapable of perfectly enforcing any punishment is not - IMHO - a sufficient argument to stop enforcing punishments.

Just at that level,death can not be overturned. Killing a few innocents because we know we do,make little sense.
Bottom line ,the state shouldn't have that power.

That's another good point. Polls show that Americans' trust in their government is at an all time low but we trust them with power of life and death over people? It makes no sense. I wouldn't trust the government to watch my kids or balance my checkbook much less killing people.

Well why do Liberals trust Govt with heath care?
and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

im german from germany

ok i think thats funny

im a human from earth

so why do you go to an obscure political page in the internet to get an opinion of what americans think ?

you might get the opinion of an

madagascarn who is on this board

and think its an american,

how would you know `?

so scientificly

your research is useless

if you want to research americans

go to america

I'm not doing a study of American opinions on capital punishment, I'm doing a dissertation looking at The Death Penalty in America in general. I'm fully aware not everyone on this forum is American, but the majority are, and that's why I'm using it. This research isn't the basis of my dissertation, its a small part that i will refer to, but i will be accounting for drawbacks of the method, such as the one you suggested. It is quite impractical as you can imagine for me to travel to America to ask questions, so this is an alternative method that is useful, it's far from useless.

I hope in your research you'll visit this site as well. The Innocence Project - Home

It's perhaps the most compelling reason to abolish CP.

 

[ChrisL]

The problem with that,is we know we have killed innocent people,we let them off death rows all the time.

No one is innocent - we are all human and we have all made mistakes.
I did acknowledge that as long as we enforce a death penalty, we will wind up executing people who are not guilty of the crime we are executing them for. We are human beings, the fact that we are incapable of perfectly enforcing any punishment is not - IMHO - a sufficient argument to stop enforcing punishments.

Just at that level,death can not be overturned. Killing a few innocents because we know we do,make little sense.
Bottom line ,the state shouldn't have that power.

That's another good point. Polls show that Americans' trust in their government is at an all time low but we trust them with power of life and death over people? It makes no sense. I wouldn't trust the government to watch my kids or balance my checkbook much less killing people.

Well why do Liberals trust Govt with heath care?
and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

 

[gipper]

Allowing the State to do anything, is always a fraught with challenges.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is innocent - we are all human and we have all made mistakes.
I did acknowledge that as long as we enforce a death penalty, we will wind up executing people who are not guilty of the crime we are executing them for. We are human beings, the fact that we are incapable of perfectly enforcing any punishment is not - IMHO - a sufficient argument to stop enforcing punishments.

Just at that level,death can not be overturned. Killing a few innocents because we know we do,make little sense.
Bottom line ,the state shouldn't have that power.

That's another good point. Polls show that Americans' trust in their government is at an all time low but we trust them with power of life and death over people? It makes no sense. I wouldn't trust the government to watch my kids or balance my checkbook much less killing people.

Well why do Liberals trust Govt with heath care?
and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

Hi ChrisL
What is frustrating to me, is that I have gone to abolition meetings and networked with their members lists online, promoting the idea of pushing for separation of funds on the basis of religious freedom not to pay for the death penalty but to pay for alternative restitution programs based on faith and exercise of "restorative justice."

And all the groups want to do is lobby to ban the death penalty for everyone, which starts a religious fight because so many people believe in it. I have LONG suggested and urged these groups to argue for "separation of church and state" but they don't seem to get it.

I think the problem is they aren't organized enough to set up "Life Row" alternative prisons as many people have suggested besides just me. The people who get this idea are too scattered, and the majority only understand to ban it period.

I thought the Catholic church would jump at the chance to set up private prisons that don't have the death penalty, similar to private schools that can teach a God-based curriculum.

Chris if you are serious about NOT paying for the death penalty,
I will back YOU up on a petition to separate the funding so that people who don't believe in capital punishment
can fund alternatives. And vice versa, if people don't want to pay for life imprisonment, and want to pay for a prison
system that holds wrongdoers accountable for their costs to victims, taxpayers and society, I agree with restitution
proportional to the damages the convict caused by premeditated crimes.

Let me know if you are serious.

I've been wanting to find people who are willing to push or even write up legislation to separate a track for Restorative Justice. I only support the death penalty as constitutional if all parties AGREE to it since it is religious in nature.

So if we pushed for Restorative Justice measures, I believe this would end up DETERRING crime because it would be too expensive to commit if people were required to be educated on the costs of crime, prosecution and incarceration, and were required to sign contracts for citizenship, agreeing to pay these costs if they commit premeditated crimes.

I believe a stronger deterrent than the death penalty would be the threat of losing citizenship and trading places with an immigrant worker for the length of the sentence. Why not set up supervised jobs developing border communities, where restitution for crimes can be paid back by investing labor and financial restitution in building sustainable campuses to support such a correctional system, including programs for rehab and recovery as part of medical treatment. Creating jobs along the border, in education and social services, would allow workers to access opportunities without having to cross illegally; and families with mixed status could be kept united by having communities with dual residency along the border.

For border security, I would set up jobs and bases for Veterans to guard the military prisons and hospitals.
for all the damaged and debts owed for drug and human trafficking across the border, I would seek restitution instead of the death penalty so these people can be put to work redeveloping safe businesses, schools and government training programs along the border where future leaders can get hands-on experience in management of city-states, security and defense. I would rather fund programs like that as a way for candidates to campaign for offices, where they prove their leadership, reforms and solutions are effective using real models, instead of experimenting after they get into office.

Earned Amnesty

 

[ChrisL]

Just at that level,death can not be overturned. Killing a few innocents because we know we do,make little sense.
Bottom line ,the state shouldn't have that power.

That's another good point. Polls show that Americans' trust in their government is at an all time low but we trust them with power of life and death over people? It makes no sense. I wouldn't trust the government to watch my kids or balance my checkbook much less killing people.

Well why do Liberals trust Govt with heath care?
and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

Hi ChrisL
What is frustrating to me, is that I have gone to abolition meetings and networked with their members lists online, promoting the idea of pushing for separation of funds on the basis of religious freedom not to pay for the death penalty but to pay for alternative restitution programs based on faith and exercise of "restorative justice."

And all the groups want to do is lobby to ban the death penalty for everyone, which starts a religious fight because so many people believe in it. I have LONG suggested and urged these groups to argue for "separation of church and state" but they don't seem to get it.

I think the problem is they aren't organized enough to set up "Life Row" alternative prisons as many people have suggested besides just me. The people who get this idea are too scattered, and the majority only understand to ban it period.

I thought the Catholic church would jump at the chance to set up private prisons that don't have the death penalty, similar to private schools that can teach a God-based curriculum.

Chris if you are serious about NOT paying for the death penalty,
I will back YOU up on a petition to separate the funding so that people who don't believe in capital punishment
can fund alternatives. And vice versa, if people don't want to pay for life imprisonment, and want to pay for a prison
system that holds wrongdoers accountable for their costs to victims, taxpayers and society, I agree with restitution
proportional to the damages the convict caused by premeditated crimes.

Let me know if you are serious.

I've been wanting to find people who are willing to push or even write up legislation to separate a track for Restorative Justice. I only support the death penalty as constitutional if all parties AGREE to it since it is religious in nature.

So if we pushed for Restorative Justice measures, I believe this would end up DETERRING crime because it would be too expensive to commit if people were required to be educated on the costs of crime, prosecution and incarceration, and were required to sign contracts for citizenship, agreeing to pay these costs if they commit premeditated crimes.

I believe a stronger deterrent than the death penalty would be the threat of losing citizenship and trading places with an immigrant worker for the length of the sentence. Why not set up supervised jobs developing border communities, where restitution for crimes can be paid back by investing labor and financial restitution in building sustainable campuses to support such a correctional system, including programs for rehab and recovery as part of medical treatment. Creating jobs along the border, in education and social services, would allow workers to access opportunities without having to cross illegally; and families with mixed status could be kept united by having communities with dual residency along the border.

For border security, I would set up jobs and bases for Veterans to guard the military prisons and hospitals.
for all the damaged and debts owed for drug and human trafficking across the border, I would seek restitution instead of the death penalty so these people can be put to work redeveloping safe businesses, schools and government training programs along the border where future leaders can get hands-on experience in management of city-states, security and defense. I would rather fund programs like that as a way for candidates to campaign for offices, where they prove their leadership, reforms and solutions are effective using real models, instead of experimenting after they get into office.

Earned Amnesty

That sounds very interesting Emily. I will definitely give it some thought. I've got a lot on my plate and a lot on my mind right now, but I will definitely think about it because I really don't like my tax money going to kill people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Unfortunately that's one boat we sink or float in together.

 

[Little-Acorn]

and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Because they know that no other group (companies, individuals etc.) can handle the military at all.

That's why it's in the Constitution as a legitimate government power. It must be handled by government.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Just at that level,death can not be overturned. Killing a few innocents because we know we do,make little sense.
Bottom line ,the state shouldn't have that power.

That's another good point. Polls show that Americans' trust in their government is at an all time low but we trust them with power of life and death over people? It makes no sense. I wouldn't trust the government to watch my kids or balance my checkbook much less killing people.

Well why do Liberals trust Govt with heath care?
and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Some things government does very well, other things not so well. The military falls in the first category.

The problem I have with the government executing people is the state runs the prosecution from arrest to the carrying out of sentences. Prosecutors pursue perfect conviction records meaning they are determined not to get to the truth, but to get the conviction. Every time. Putting the state in charge of killing somebody they set up to be convicted regardless of actual guilt to begin with comes very close to state sanctioned murder.

Deprived of the ability to kill the people it convicts, there is time to find the truth and have the conviction overturned. This happens a lot, especially with people who were convicted based on eyewitness account but exonerated by DNA evidence.

There are quite a few people who were found to be innocent. Why anyone thinks executing people is worth the risk, I don't know. Just blood thirsty people I guess. Killing is killing, IMO. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to kill people who are no longer a threat to society. It's stupid, wasteful and barbaric.

Hi ChrisL
What is frustrating to me, is that I have gone to abolition meetings and networked with their members lists online, promoting the idea of pushing for separation of funds on the basis of religious freedom not to pay for the death penalty but to pay for alternative restitution programs based on faith and exercise of "restorative justice."

And all the groups want to do is lobby to ban the death penalty for everyone, which starts a religious fight because so many people believe in it. I have LONG suggested and urged these groups to argue for "separation of church and state" but they don't seem to get it.

I think the problem is they aren't organized enough to set up "Life Row" alternative prisons as many people have suggested besides just me. The people who get this idea are too scattered, and the majority only understand to ban it period.

I thought the Catholic church would jump at the chance to set up private prisons that don't have the death penalty, similar to private schools that can teach a God-based curriculum.

Chris if you are serious about NOT paying for the death penalty,
I will back YOU up on a petition to separate the funding so that people who don't believe in capital punishment
can fund alternatives. And vice versa, if people don't want to pay for life imprisonment, and want to pay for a prison
system that holds wrongdoers accountable for their costs to victims, taxpayers and society, I agree with restitution
proportional to the damages the convict caused by premeditated crimes.

Let me know if you are serious.

I've been wanting to find people who are willing to push or even write up legislation to separate a track for Restorative Justice. I only support the death penalty as constitutional if all parties AGREE to it since it is religious in nature.

So if we pushed for Restorative Justice measures, I believe this would end up DETERRING crime because it would be too expensive to commit if people were required to be educated on the costs of crime, prosecution and incarceration, and were required to sign contracts for citizenship, agreeing to pay these costs if they commit premeditated crimes.

I believe a stronger deterrent than the death penalty would be the threat of losing citizenship and trading places with an immigrant worker for the length of the sentence. Why not set up supervised jobs developing border communities, where restitution for crimes can be paid back by investing labor and financial restitution in building sustainable campuses to support such a correctional system, including programs for rehab and recovery as part of medical treatment. Creating jobs along the border, in education and social services, would allow workers to access opportunities without having to cross illegally; and families with mixed status could be kept united by having communities with dual residency along the border.

For border security, I would set up jobs and bases for Veterans to guard the military prisons and hospitals.
for all the damaged and debts owed for drug and human trafficking across the border, I would seek restitution instead of the death penalty so these people can be put to work redeveloping safe businesses, schools and government training programs along the border where future leaders can get hands-on experience in management of city-states, security and defense. I would rather fund programs like that as a way for candidates to campaign for offices, where they prove their leadership, reforms and solutions are effective using real models, instead of experimenting after they get into office.

Earned Amnesty

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

 

[emilynghiem]

and why do Conservatives trust Govt with military spending unquestioned and unchecked?

Because they know that no other group (companies, individuals etc.) can handle the military at all.

That's why it's in the Constitution as a legitimate government power. It must be handled by government.

Right Little-Acorn that's not my point ^ see above where my point is "unquestioned and UNCHECKED" ^
just because federal govt is in charge of military doesn't mean you let them run wild with the budget and contracts.

I'm asking about the lack of accountability. That if only the people against war are looking into the no bid contracts
and contested dealings going on, and those opponents are discredited as biased in agenda,
then who is policing and making sure military contracts and VA aren't abusing resources to waste tax money?

Surely if the Conservatives are into responsible limited govt and don't want this corrupted,
this should include policing the military spending and making sure there aren't abuses and conflicts of interest going on.

Especially if liberals and anti-war progressives can't be trusted to be objective,
there should be Conservatives who support the military involved in making sure there is no irresponsible or corrupt spending.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

 

[emilynghiem]

If you want to get an idea of Capital Punishment in the United States you need to study the American justice system. Capital Punishment has been upheld in several Supreme Court decisions. If you want us to write your paper go somewhere else. I guess they feed their serious Scottish offenders to Nessie or let them rot in prison eating crappy Scottish food for the rest of their lives. Anybody ever go to a good Scottish restaurant? I rest my case.

whitehall even with endorsement by govt,
giving or recognizing govt authority to terminate life
is a spiritual decision that involves religious, personal or political beliefs.

So technically it constitutes a belief or creed of some sort
"if we believe that govt has such authority and it can be endorsed and enforced by courts"

some people do not have this belief, but inherently believe in
supporting Restorative Justice alternatives. If a consensus can be reached
on that, it is possible to fund other alternatives, and keep both options open
with respect to people's BELIEFS, so people have a free choice to fund either one.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.

I guess you can name car insurance as a choice, where you can pay for just minimal liability or you can pay for full coverage as you choose. At least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

We choose to fund the political parties, platforms, candidates and lobbying of our choice,
and this runs into the billions of dollars which shows willingness to pay for what we
believe in without being required by laws to do so.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.
I guess you can name car insurance as a choice: at least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

Ok, so the thing you're proposing has never successfully been implemented and even the choices you list aren't really choices. Sure on paper I can pick up my family and move away from the rest of our family, but in reality that's not going to happen. I'm stuck here in Idaho and my taxes will continue to be used for whatever legislation holds sway in Idaho and in this country. Church organizations don't pay taxes and if any business has successfully exempted itself from taxation to fund functions of government, I'm sure that would have been all over the news. I'd sure like a link because I really don't think there's a precedent for what you're pushing for, so it sounds like wasted effort.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.
I guess you can name car insurance as a choice: at least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

Ok, so the thing you're proposing has never successfully been implemented and even the choices you list aren't really choices. Sure on paper I can pick up my family and move away from the rest of our family, but in reality that's not going to happen. I'm stuck here in Idaho and my taxes will continue to be used for whatever legislation holds sway in Idaho and in this country. Church organizations don't pay taxes and if any business has successfully exempted itself from taxation to fund functions of government, I'm sure that would have been all over the news. I'd sure like a link because I really don't think there's a precedent for what you're pushing for, so it sounds like wasted effort.

Hi saintmichaeldefendthem
And people who fought for abolition and Civil Rights were up against the masses also.
They had to start somewhere, BEFORE any such thing as abolition of slavery was ever done by precedent.

Blacks got their rights to vote before women did. Those battles had to be separated in order to win
because people couldn't handle them being combined as Equal Human Rights.

SaintM if we waited on things to be done by precedent,
how would Einstein every introduce new knowledge?
How would Edison invent the light bulb if it had never been done before?

If you of such little faith have such little faith,
I'm glad to start with ChrisL and let her be the Rosa Parks here who is just tired and doesn't want to pay for executions
when those millions of dollars per capital case could be paying for health care and preventative treatment to stop crime
and especially murder.

There are whole groups across the country lobbying for criminal justice reform and Restorative Justice.

Maybe we need to tie it to a campaign to teach that Restorative Justice IS Christ Jesus fulfilling secular laws.

I am happy to ask my friends with 2-3 abolition groups
to help me and Chris petition the Catholic church to work with Mexican prisons
that don't have the death penalty to set up a prisoner exchange program that
we can fund as an equal choice, where people can choose deportation for life over executions.

I am happy to lobby Ted Cruz, Ted Poe and other leaders open to innovative solutions
to help form a task force to write out international laws on how this exchange can be done legally.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger envisioned similar plans to redevelop prisons along the border
to address immigration and prison costs at the same time:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal.../schwarzenegger-send-prisoners-to-mexico.html
Schwarzenegger Build prisons in Mexico

This is a unifying solution, and would solve several problems at once.

if nothing else, if you have faith that where two or three agree and pray in Christ Jesus
for anything touching the earth, it is done by our father in heaven, then as long as this is God's will then it is done.
If it isn't God's will, then whatever is, we agree to receive that also. For sake of Jesus or Justice for all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think that moribund causes are not worth the time. Living in a democracy means having to pay for things the majority votes for. I think that welfare destroys families and perpetuates poverty, dependency, and despair, and I have to pay for it. I also have to pay for the Justice Department to sue Arizona, federal funding for ACORN, and the president's salary and benefits whether I voted for him or not. I have to fund wars that kill people even if I disagree with the war. There's no getting out of that and such an effort will go nowhere.

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.
I guess you can name car insurance as a choice: at least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

Ok, so the thing you're proposing has never successfully been implemented and even the choices you list aren't really choices. Sure on paper I can pick up my family and move away from the rest of our family, but in reality that's not going to happen. I'm stuck here in Idaho and my taxes will continue to be used for whatever legislation holds sway in Idaho and in this country. Church organizations don't pay taxes and if any business has successfully exempted itself from taxation to fund functions of government, I'm sure that would have been all over the news. I'd sure like a link because I really don't think there's a precedent for what you're pushing for, so it sounds like wasted effort.

Hi saintmichaeldefendthem
And people who fought for abolition and Civil Rights were up against the masses also.
They had to start somewhere, BEFORE any such thing as abolition of slavery was ever done by precedent.

Blacks got their rights to vote before women did. Those battles had to be separated in order to win
because people couldn't handle them being combined as Equal Human Rights.

SaintM if we waited on things to be done by precedent,
how would Einstein every introduce new knowledge?
How would Edison invent the light bulb if it had never been done before?

If you of such little faith have such little faith,
I'm glad to start with ChrisL and let her be the Rosa Parks here who is just tired and doesn't want to pay for executions
when those millions of dollars per capital case could be paying for health care and preventative treatment to stop crime
and especially murder.

There are whole groups across the country lobbying for criminal justice reform and Restorative Justice.

Maybe we need to tie it to a campaign to teach that Restorative Justice IS Christ Jesus fulfilling secular laws.

I am happy to ask my friends with 2-3 abolition groups
to help me and Chris petition the Catholic church to work with Mexican prisons
that don't have the death penalty to set up a prisoner exchange program that
we can fund as an equal choice, where people can choose deportation for life over executions.

I am happy to lobby Ted Cruz, Ted Poe and other leaders open to innovative solutions
to help form a task force to write out international laws on how this exchange can be done legally.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger envisioned similar plans to redevelop prisons along the border
to address immigration and prison costs at the same time:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal.../schwarzenegger-send-prisoners-to-mexico.html
Schwarzenegger Build prisons in Mexico

This is a unifying solution, and would solve several problems at once.

if nothing else, if you have faith that where two or three agree and pray in Christ Jesus
for anything touching the earth, it is done by our father in heaven, then as long as this is God's will then it is done.
If it isn't God's will, then whatever is, we agree to receive that also. For sake of Jesus or Justice for all.

I'm not trying to be your enemy here, I just hate to see effort wasted that could be better spent. And I also think that ChrisL was being polite. Notice she said she was too busy right now. Polite.

Do you remember how Christians ended the Gladiator events? They protested it, even some allowing themselves to be martyred, torn apart by lions to show the inhumanity of it. Eventually the gladiators fell into disfavor and the practice was discontinued. Christians are most effective when creating a culture of life to combat the culture of death. We demonstrate the philosophical conflict in being anti abortion yet supporting the death penalty, as many Christians do.

So no, I'm not shooting down your idea and doing nothing. We find other ways to be the fragrance of life in a society that holds life cheap, who cheers when a woman is starved to death by having her feeding tube removed, and who thinks abortion is a right.

And another thing is, I don't think we do our cause any favors by demonizing capital punishment. It was instituted by God himself centuries before the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai as the very backbone of human criminal justice. It goes all the way back to Noah. One cannot vilify capital punishment without vilifying God who established it to begin with. Capital punishment is not evil and it's not injustice, and our insinuation that it is just infuriates people and drives them away. When a murderer is put to death, no wrong has been committed nor is their any cause for complaint.

This debate isn't about good vs evil like it is for abortion, the taking of INNOCENT life, this is about what's just and what's better, or better put, justice and mercy. Justice is never wrong, but mercy is better. God would be just to condemn all of humanity, but instead sent his Son Jesus Christ to provide a bridge of mercy. And we, the recipients of mercy, ought by all right be advocates of mercy. And if we can give somebody a lifetime in prison to come to terms with the life they stole and repent, then why wouldn't we?

But now you know why I'm not enthusiastic about being combative toward capital punishment. It isn't an intrinsic evil that I must battle for the sake of righteousness, it's a practice rooted in the Old Covenant, outmoded for justice has been satisfied by mercy and we are its sons.

 

[emilynghiem]

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.
I guess you can name car insurance as a choice: at least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

Ok, so the thing you're proposing has never successfully been implemented and even the choices you list aren't really choices. Sure on paper I can pick up my family and move away from the rest of our family, but in reality that's not going to happen. I'm stuck here in Idaho and my taxes will continue to be used for whatever legislation holds sway in Idaho and in this country. Church organizations don't pay taxes and if any business has successfully exempted itself from taxation to fund functions of government, I'm sure that would have been all over the news. I'd sure like a link because I really don't think there's a precedent for what you're pushing for, so it sounds like wasted effort.

Hi saintmichaeldefendthem
And people who fought for abolition and Civil Rights were up against the masses also.
They had to start somewhere, BEFORE any such thing as abolition of slavery was ever done by precedent.

Blacks got their rights to vote before women did. Those battles had to be separated in order to win
because people couldn't handle them being combined as Equal Human Rights.

SaintM if we waited on things to be done by precedent,
how would Einstein every introduce new knowledge?
How would Edison invent the light bulb if it had never been done before?

If you of such little faith have such little faith,
I'm glad to start with ChrisL and let her be the Rosa Parks here who is just tired and doesn't want to pay for executions
when those millions of dollars per capital case could be paying for health care and preventative treatment to stop crime
and especially murder.

There are whole groups across the country lobbying for criminal justice reform and Restorative Justice.

Maybe we need to tie it to a campaign to teach that Restorative Justice IS Christ Jesus fulfilling secular laws.

I am happy to ask my friends with 2-3 abolition groups
to help me and Chris petition the Catholic church to work with Mexican prisons
that don't have the death penalty to set up a prisoner exchange program that
we can fund as an equal choice, where people can choose deportation for life over executions.

I am happy to lobby Ted Cruz, Ted Poe and other leaders open to innovative solutions
to help form a task force to write out international laws on how this exchange can be done legally.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger envisioned similar plans to redevelop prisons along the border
to address immigration and prison costs at the same time:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal.../schwarzenegger-send-prisoners-to-mexico.html
Schwarzenegger Build prisons in Mexico

This is a unifying solution, and would solve several problems at once.

if nothing else, if you have faith that where two or three agree and pray in Christ Jesus
for anything touching the earth, it is done by our father in heaven, then as long as this is God's will then it is done.
If it isn't God's will, then whatever is, we agree to receive that also. For sake of Jesus or Justice for all.

I'm not trying to be your enemy here, I just hate to see effort wasted that could be better spent. And I also think that ChrisL was being polite. Notice she said she was too busy right now. Polite.

Do you remember how Christians ended the Gladiator events? They protested it, even some allowing themselves to be martyred, torn apart by lions to show the inhumanity of it. Eventually the gladiators fell into disfavor and the practice was discontinued. Christians are most effective when creating a culture of life to combat the culture of death. We demonstrate the philosophical conflict in being anti abortion yet supporting the death penalty, as many Christians do.

So no, I'm not shooting down your idea and doing nothing. We find other ways to be the fragrance of life in a society that holds life cheap, who cheers when a woman is starved to death by having her feeding tube removed, and who thinks abortion is a right.

And another thing is, I don't think we do our cause any favors by demonizing capital punishment. It was instituted by God himself centuries before the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai as the very backbone of human criminal justice. It goes all the way back to Noah. One cannot vilify capital punishment without vilifying God who established it to begin with. Capital punishment is not evil and it's not injustice, and our insinuation that it is just infuriates people and drives them away. When a murderer is put to death, no wrong has been committed nor is their any cause for complaint.

This debate isn't about good vs evil like it is for abortion, the taking of INNOCENT life, this is about what's just and what's better, or better put, justice and mercy. Justice is never wrong, but mercy is better. God would be just to condemn all of humanity, but instead sent his Son Jesus Christ to provide a bridge of mercy. And we, the recipients of mercy, ought by all right be advocates of mercy. And if we can give somebody a lifetime in prison to come to terms with the life they stole and repent, then why wouldn't we?

But now you know why I'm not enthusiastic about being combative toward capital punishment. It isn't an intrinsic evil that I must battle for the sake of righteousness, it's a practice rooted in the Old Covenant, outmoded for justice has been satisfied by mercy and we are its sons.

Nor am I being combative about it. Just being proactive.

And no you are right, if all the people who wanted abolition or wanted civil rights
sat around and were 'polite about it' we wouldn't be where we are today.

The advantage we have today is the internet.

Even working people can organize petitions or campaigns online and PUBLICIZE an idea.
the real idea I want to promote is signed agreements for citizens to AGREE to pay for any premeditated
crimes we commit and are convicted of. And agreements to get help for those with criminal illness or risks of danger.

Hey SMDT if I can work TWO JOBS and write up blog campaigns
surely people who are only working one job, or those not working at all can do some outreach.

All it takes is people committed to voting yes or no, and that is enough to back a campaign.

How do you think the Trayvon Martin issue took off? If people agree something needs
to change and are serious about it, we can ask for change, or demand it if we have a solution to propose.

And the worst that can happen is we publicize the need for reform,
and maybe someone's better idea can be adopted instead, which is even better!

 

[ChrisL]

saintmichaeldefendthem
Since Obama (liberal Democrat) and Ben Carson (conservative Republican) both believe in microlending and training/education to end poverty and dependence on welfare,
wouldn't you SUPPORT replacing welfare with sustainable lending and training programs providing a track to pay these back so people are rewarded for becoming independent?

Why keep paying for a faulty system that both sides agree is causing problems.

If we AGREE on a better solution, isn't the next logical step to pursue legislative reforms to replace that with a better system that works?

[as for your other points, if we can focus on reforms where even opposing sides agree on better solutions, what other problems can we solve this way? you bring up the cost of lawsuits between state and federal: what if these laws were written by consensus to begin with, wouldn't we save money and resources not having to sue afterwards if we resolved issues in advance?
see Code of Ethics for Govt Service (ethics-commission.net and principle on seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks. Why waste public resources on lawsuits, if we know there is a conflict why not require conflict resolution to guarantee equal representation protection and inclusion of all views beliefs and interests.]

Can you name a single instance in which taxpayers were able to opt out of funding something they didn't like? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying I've never heard of it.

With religion, we have a choice to fund the religions of our choice.
With businesses, we have the freedom to patronize the businesses of our choice.
I guess you can name car insurance as a choice: at least one state has the option to
prove ability to pay as an alternative to buying car insurance.
And all people have a choice not to buy or own a car so you are not forced to pay for insurance.

With states, we have the right to move to a state that has the tax laws we agree to follow
and get away from states that charge more or charge for things we don't agree to pay for with our taxes.

Both church organizations and now certain businesses
successfully sued not to fund certain abortifacient drugs, and were allowed to qualify for exemption
from federal requirements based on religious grounds.

On our tax forms we have the choice to fund campaigns or not.

We have the choice to use alternative currency legally instead of federal reserve notes
if we follow certain rules to make sure this is done legally.

We choose whether or how much to give to USO and other nonprofits that help Vets
that are outside govt mandates to pay so much of our taxes into the military.

There are many different levels where we exercise freedom to fund what we believe in
and not impose this on other people. This is a natural law, where people naturally seek to support what we believe in.

Ok, so the thing you're proposing has never successfully been implemented and even the choices you list aren't really choices. Sure on paper I can pick up my family and move away from the rest of our family, but in reality that's not going to happen. I'm stuck here in Idaho and my taxes will continue to be used for whatever legislation holds sway in Idaho and in this country. Church organizations don't pay taxes and if any business has successfully exempted itself from taxation to fund functions of government, I'm sure that would have been all over the news. I'd sure like a link because I really don't think there's a precedent for what you're pushing for, so it sounds like wasted effort.

Hi saintmichaeldefendthem
And people who fought for abolition and Civil Rights were up against the masses also.
They had to start somewhere, BEFORE any such thing as abolition of slavery was ever done by precedent.

Blacks got their rights to vote before women did. Those battles had to be separated in order to win
because people couldn't handle them being combined as Equal Human Rights.

SaintM if we waited on things to be done by precedent,
how would Einstein every introduce new knowledge?
How would Edison invent the light bulb if it had never been done before?

If you of such little faith have such little faith,
I'm glad to start with ChrisL and let her be the Rosa Parks here who is just tired and doesn't want to pay for executions
when those millions of dollars per capital case could be paying for health care and preventative treatment to stop crime
and especially murder.

There are whole groups across the country lobbying for criminal justice reform and Restorative Justice.

Maybe we need to tie it to a campaign to teach that Restorative Justice IS Christ Jesus fulfilling secular laws.

I am happy to ask my friends with 2-3 abolition groups
to help me and Chris petition the Catholic church to work with Mexican prisons
that don't have the death penalty to set up a prisoner exchange program that
we can fund as an equal choice, where people can choose deportation for life over executions.

I am happy to lobby Ted Cruz, Ted Poe and other leaders open to innovative solutions
to help form a task force to write out international laws on how this exchange can be done legally.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger envisioned similar plans to redevelop prisons along the border
to address immigration and prison costs at the same time:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal.../schwarzenegger-send-prisoners-to-mexico.html
Schwarzenegger Build prisons in Mexico

This is a unifying solution, and would solve several problems at once.

if nothing else, if you have faith that where two or three agree and pray in Christ Jesus
for anything touching the earth, it is done by our father in heaven, then as long as this is God's will then it is done.
If it isn't God's will, then whatever is, we agree to receive that also. For sake of Jesus or Justice for all.

I'm not trying to be your enemy here, I just hate to see effort wasted that could be better spent. And I also think that ChrisL was being polite. Notice she said she was too busy right now. Polite.

Do you remember how Christians ended the Gladiator events? They protested it, even some allowing themselves to be martyred, torn apart by lions to show the inhumanity of it. Eventually the gladiators fell into disfavor and the practice was discontinued. Christians are most effective when creating a culture of life to combat the culture of death. We demonstrate the philosophical conflict in being anti abortion yet supporting the death penalty, as many Christians do.

So no, I'm not shooting down your idea and doing nothing. We find other ways to be the fragrance of life in a society that holds life cheap, who cheers when a woman is starved to death by having her feeding tube removed, and who thinks abortion is a right.

And another thing is, I don't think we do our cause any favors by demonizing capital punishment. It was instituted by God himself centuries before the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai as the very backbone of human criminal justice. It goes all the way back to Noah. One cannot vilify capital punishment without vilifying God who established it to begin with. Capital punishment is not evil and it's not injustice, and our insinuation that it is just infuriates people and drives them away. When a murderer is put to death, no wrong has been committed nor is their any cause for complaint.

This debate isn't about good vs evil like it is for abortion, the taking of INNOCENT life, this is about what's just and what's better, or better put, justice and mercy. Justice is never wrong, but mercy is better. God would be just to condemn all of humanity, but instead sent his Son Jesus Christ to provide a bridge of mercy. And we, the recipients of mercy, ought by all right be advocates of mercy. And if we can give somebody a lifetime in prison to come to terms with the life they stole and repent, then why wouldn't we?

But now you know why I'm not enthusiastic about being combative toward capital punishment. It isn't an intrinsic evil that I must battle for the sake of righteousness, it's a practice rooted in the Old Covenant, outmoded for justice has been satisfied by mercy and we are its sons.

Well that's not true. I really have been quite preoccupied lately with the blizzards and terrible weather we've been having around here, being busy with work, amongst other more personal matters. I just haven't had the time to really give it a lot of thought. I also wonder if our representatives really ever listen to us if there isn't something "in it" for them. So I might be a bit skeptical about it.