Thursday, August 2, 2012

THE DEATH PENALTY & PRO-LIFE DEBATE: ABORTION & CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


NOTE: I will post a debate on the death penalty every fortnight on the blog.

            Can you be against abortion but support capital punishment? Let us hear from two Christian leaders.

Kristi McLaughlin is the pastor of Anew United Church of Christ in Mitchell. http://anewucc.areavoices.com/pastor/

Rev. Kristi McLaughlin










McLAUGHLIN: ‘Pro-life’ should mean anti-capital punishment 

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. 

By: The Rev. Kristi McLaughlin, Guest columnist 

“Thou shalt not murder.” It’s the foundation of the Christian pro-life movement, and yet many within the pro-life movement do not take the time to research the Hebrew understanding of when “life” begins.

According to Rabbi Raymond A. Zwerin and Rabbi Richard J. Shapiro, Jewish, i.e. Hebrew, law does not grant personhood status to a fetus. To quote, “Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nefesh hu’ — it is not a person. The Talmud contains the expression ‘ubar yerech imo’ — the fetus is as the thigh of its mother, i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.”

I find it interesting that claiming to be pro-life is really a pronouncement of being against abortion rather than a consistent ideology of being pro-life.

To me, being pro-life means supporting all policies, systems, legislation, budgets, etc., that support and honor life and opposing all of the above that take from life. Being prolife means one sees the life-taking effects of poverty and works to overcome systems that keep people poor, including acknowledging that tax breaks for the most wealthy do nothing to help the poor. Being pro-life includes health care for all regardless of ability to pay, previous medical conditions or ability to obtain insurance. It means quality education, access to nutritious food (has anyone tried to feed a family a healthy diet on food stamps only?). It means preservation of the earth, and it even means opposition to the death penalty, which brings me to the point of this column.

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. Is state execution not “murder”? Or is murder OK if state-mandated?

Where are the pro-lifers who quote the words of Scripture adamantly opposing two people of same sex who love one another and seek “life” together in a committed monogamous relationship?

It seems that once again, we have a selective pro-life movement that has a passion for “life” but only in its own very narrow definitions.

Donald Moeller took a life — a young beautiful life. What he did is tragic, violent and awful. I cannot imagine what breaks so terribly within a human that one would be able to do such terrible things. Donald Moeller broke the Hebrew instruction, “Thou shalt not murder,” but his is a life as well and for those of us who claim to be Christians (let alone pro-life) to stand silently by as he is executed does nothing for our case as Christians. It does nothing for our case that we believe in a God of forgiveness, mercy, grace and love. It does nothing for our case that we follow the way of Jesus who welcomed and sat with thieves, prostitutes, and sinners — a Jesus who opposed violence.

To quote Sister Helen Prejean, “Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him. I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to ‘God’s Avengers.’ Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”

Sister Prejean, neither do I.
Kristi McLaughlin is the pastor of Anew United Church of Christ in Mitchell.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Richard D. Land (born 1946) is the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the moral and ethics concern entity of the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, a post he has held since 1988. He is also currently serving as interim pastor at Red Bank Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN.

Dr. Richard D. Land

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty can be pro-life

On Faith- Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? How does one reconcile these positions?
 
It is often pointed out, contrary to what most people expect, that there is a positive correlation between being pro-life and supporting the death penalty. Conversely, there is also a positive correlation between being pro-choice and being against the death penalty.

Many people who are pro-choice point this out and talk about the Roman Catholic church’s attempt to have what they call a “seamless garment” approach, which means that if you are pro-life you must also be opposed to the death penalty. I support both the pro-life position and the death penalty and see consistency rather than contradiction in holding these positions. Yet that does not mean that I support, without reservation, the death penalty as it has been and is still often applied in the United States.

I am pro-life because the Bible clearly teaches us that life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5) This truth is supported with ever increasing detail as the science of embryology reveals more and more about the intricacies of human fetal development. The Bible also tells us God is involved when conception takes place (Jeremiah 1:4-5), and that God is involved intimately in the process of maturation and development of a child even prior to birth (Psalm 139:13-16).

In the most sustained passage in the New Testament concerning God’s plan and role for government (Romans 13), we learn that God ordained the civil magistrate to punish those who do evil and reward those who do right. 

We also are told, in Romans 13:4, that the civil magistrate bears not the sword in vain. In the original Greek language the word used there for “sword” is the same word used for the type of sword used to execute Roman citizens who were found guilty of capital crimes. Clearly, the Apostle Paul, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, is granting to the civil magistrate the use of lethal force as one of the options available to punish those who do evil--in the case of domestic criminals, the police force, and in war, the military.

Just War theorists have cited this passage for centuries to give biblical justification for the use of government-authorized lethal force in warfare.

If one is going to support the death penalty, one also has to support its just and equitable application. Historically, in the United States we have not justly and fairly applied the death penalty. You have been much more likely to be executed if you were poor rather than wealthy, if you were a man rather than a woman, and if you were a person of color rather than white.

Those who support the continued option of the death penalty as a biblically authorized option in heinous crimes must also work for its just and equitable application. While the imbalance concerning race, ethnicity and sex have been significantly reduced, it still remains true that a wealthy person is much less likely to be executed than a poor person. 

O.J. Simpson is perhaps the classic example--a man who most people would accept as being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having murdered his wife and another person but was let off because he could hire the best lawyers available. We need to find a way to address that unjust imbalance if we want to continue to support the death penalty.

However, on the other side of the coin, it must be said that people who are pro-life believe that life is sacred, and that when a person, wantonly and premeditatedly takes the life of another person, they have forfeited their right to continued life. And when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, they should be executed.

I don’t believe that people have a right to support something that they’re not willing to participate in themselves. If I’m going to support the death penalty, I have to be willing to perform the execution myself. I think of the case of Jessica Lunsford, the 9-year-old Florida girl who was abducted from her home, raped and brutalized in every imaginable way for three days by John Couey, and then was buried alive with her doll. If the state had the chance to give John Couey his lethal injection, I would be comforted by the fact that justice was executed .

The man had forfeited his right to live. And if he had not died from the ravages of his drug abuse before he could have been executed, he should have been executed. The only just sentence for a man committing such a crime was execution.

I believe we should keep the death penalty to be used in heinous cases like this, and in cases of treason and other reprehensible crimes against humanity. I believe this is consistent with my pro-life position.

I believe that people who are pro-life are horrified by a person taking upon themselves the prerogatives of God and wantonly and premeditatedly taking another person’s life. They believe that when a person is found guilty of doing this with premeditation, they have forfeited their right to life in a civilized society.

Richard Land | Sep 15, 2011 10:54 AM
 
My response to Kristi McLaughlin: ‘Pro-life’ should mean anti-capital punishment’
            I respect Kristi McLaughlin as I am a Christian too but as a former opponent of the death penalty and a former supporter of abortion (I have changed to being pro death penalty and pro-life), I agree with her stance against abortion but not against capital punishment. I would like to explain why:

I find it interesting that claiming to be pro-life is really a pronouncement of being against abortion rather than a consistent ideology of being pro-life.

It means preservation of the earth, and it even means opposition to the death penalty.

Explanation: Please see what Richard Land wrote above. Also, here is another quote, Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. And it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty. It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit.” (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct) - John Murray (14 October 1898 – 8 May 1975) was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and then left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years.

Donald Moeller’s execution date has been set, but I do not see any of the pro-lifers taking notice and opposing this execution. Is state execution not “murder”? Or is murder OK if state-mandated?

Explanation: The state is not being a murderer in response to murder; the state is being an executioner. To compare execution to murder is like comparing incarceration to kidnapping and slavery, fines to extortions, restitutions to thefts and a defensive war to an aggressive war. Donald Moeller is still a human being but he was found guilty and he has taken an innocent life, so he must forfeit his.

Donald Moeller took a life — a young beautiful life. What he did is tragic, violent and awful. I cannot imagine what breaks so terribly within a human that one would be able to do such terrible things. Donald Moeller broke the Hebrew instruction, “Thou shalt not murder,” but his is a life as well and for those of us who claim to be Christians (let alone pro-life) to stand silently by as he is executed does nothing for our case as Christians. It does nothing for our case that we believe in a God of forgiveness, mercy, grace and love. It does nothing for our case that we follow the way of Jesus who welcomed and sat with thieves, prostitutes, and sinners — a Jesus who opposed violence.

To quote Sister Helen Prejean, “Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him. I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to ‘God’s Avengers.’ Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”

Sister Prejean, neither do I.

Explanation: Do not mix up the love and justice of God. Matthew Henry, John Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas all acknowledge that the state has the right to protect its citizens from evildoers. You must understand that the 6th commandment and the New Testament still support the death penalty. Professor Michael Pakaluk was quoted in The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991: "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: ‘As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.’ That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty."     

No comments:

Post a Comment