Is the Death Penalty in America based on 'an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth

[katpohl]

@Mangetout

The Bible says, somewhere or other, that you shouldn’t steal. Should we drop all the laws pertaining to theft?

No, I think the thief should have his hand chopped off.

not really:D

[katpohl]

@Huerta88

I’m not trying to be snide. It’s just that my original explanation of how Establishment Clause issues get decided was intended to help but seemed not to have.

We are in GQ not GD. Your second sentence could make an interesting GD. I do not agree with it, because I suspect that torturing someone to death because he tortured his victim to death would meet even my rather elastic definition of both cruel (because cruel) and unusual (because not AFAIK found in the common law ca. 1780). But, your idea is not on-its-face crazy or undebatable. I say open a GD thread if that has not already been done.

Again it isn’t GD, but I’m not sure what you mean about the gov’t being two-faced. I can imagine that description applying in many areas (banning bookies but running a lottery). How is it two-faced w.r.t. capital punishment?

My saying the gov. is “two face” is more along the line of they ‘the gov.’ have done away with anything that pertains to religion in all government places or gov. funded public schools etc … and if the DP is founded on the bible then shouldn’t the gov. do some changing on their stance , what kind of changing ?

Heck I wouldn’t hazard to guess but then trying to figure out what our gov. will come up with next has never been my forte. that is why I ask the question . I ask the same question in a forum and all I got was the a bunch of people fighting over the pros and cons of the issue according to personal opinion ,

Your “(banning bookies but running a lottery)” is a very good example of what I mean by " two face".

[Nava]

@Thudlow Boink

If it were, wouldn’t the legal penalty for injuring someone (e.g. putting someone’s eye out) be having the same injury inflicted on oneself?

The maximum legal penalty would be that, yes. The Talion is actually an upper limit, not a requirement. There’s several hair-raising stories in the Bible, pre-Talion, of things like people razing a whole village for a rape. The Talion is simply a very early expression of the notion that “the punishment must fit the crime.”

[Huerta88]

@katpohl

My saying the gov. is “two face” is more along the line of they ‘the gov.’ have done away with anything that pertains to religion in all government places or gov. funded public schools etc … and if the DP is founded on the bible then shouldn’t the gov. do some changing on their stance , what kind of changing ?

It has been explained to you several times that capital punishment is not “founded on the bible.” It isn’t productive to keep repeating the assertion that it is, or the suggestion that if it were indeed “founded on the Bible,” this would make the government “two faced.”

I’ve also explained the Establishment Clause, which really was only ever intended to prevent the gov’t from setting up an official State Church, like the Church of England, making the head of state also the head of the Church, etc.

No one has ever seriously suggested (or no serious person has ever suggested) that the Constitution, or avoidance of two-faced-ness, requires the government to enact only those policies that are not endorsed by any religious body, group, or doctrine. You seem to keep insisting though that this is what the so-called “separation of church and state” requires, and that if the government ever enacts an endorsement of X or prohibition of Y, the government is guilty of grave hypocrisy if it turns out that one or more religious groups also liked X or didn’t like Y. The Constitution would be a very perverse document indeed if it ruled out all policies that had ever been endorsed by believers (both because this would leave very few policy options, and because it would require throwing out the baby with the bathwater, given that major religions, as well as non-religious schools of thought, have arrived at some pretty good collective moral wisdom).

In short:

The death penalty is not “founded on the Bible.” The OP is thus moot.
“Separation of church and state” does not ban government recourse to any and all policies with which one church or another would agree. The OP is thus moot.

[katpohl]

@Huerta88

It has been explained to you several times that capital punishment is not “founded on the bible.” It isn’t productive to keep repeating the assertion that it is, or the suggestion that if it were indeed “founded on the Bible,” this would make the government “two faced.”

I’ve also explained the Establishment Clause, which really was only ever intended to prevent the gov’t from setting up an official State Church, like the Church of England, making the head of state also the head of the Church, etc.

No one has ever seriously suggested (or no serious person has ever suggested) that the Constitution, or avoidance of two-faced-ness, requires the government to enact only those policies that are not endorsed by any religious body, group, or doctrine. You seem to keep insisting though that this is what the so-called “separation of church and state” requires, and that if the government ever enacts an endorsement of X or prohibition of Y, the government is guilty of grave hypocrisy if it turns out that one or more religious groups also liked X or didn’t like Y. The Constitution would be a very perverse document indeed if it ruled out all policies that had ever been endorsed by believers (both because this would leave very few policy options, and because it would require throwing out the baby with the bathwater, given that major religions, as well as non-religious schools of thought, have arrived at some pretty good collective moral wisdom).

In short:

The death penalty is not “founded on the Bible.” The OP is thus moot.
“Separation of church and state” does not ban government recourse to any and all policies with which one church or another would agree. The OP is thus moot.

Please go read post # 4 . Thank you.

[Shodan]

@katpohl

My saying the gov. is “two face” is more along the line of they ‘the gov.’ have done away with anything that pertains to religion in all government places or gov. funded public schools etc … and if the DP is founded on the bible then shouldn’t the gov. do some changing on their stance , what kind of changing ?

Well, no, or at least not as far as I can tell. Opposition to slavery in the US was largely motivated by a religious revival in America (cite), but nobody supposes that we should have retained slavery as a social institution because of that.

Just because people are motivated by religious belief doesn’t mean the government cannot implement their desires, providing the goals have a legitimate secular purpose. Black churches and black church leaders like Dr. King were motivated by their religious beliefs, and their commitment to non-violence came from Gandhi, who got the idea from Jesus. But civil rights do not further the establishment of a particular religion, and have (to say the least) a legitimate secular purpose. Thus even if those participating in the the bus boycott were 100% motivated by religious belief, the government should have and did take notice of their actions and implement their goals.

Same with the death penalty. Indeed, it is even clearer for the DP, since some of the opposition to the DP comes from religious motives (cite). So, do we implement the DP because those who oppose it are religiously motivated, or do we outlaw it, because those who support it are religiously motivated?

Regards,
Shodan

[mlees]

@Huerta88

Ah, the link was intended as I think a response to a fairly snarky post by me pointing out that “separation of church and state” doesn’t mean what everyone seems to think it does. The substantive action here that the OP was thinking of is in the Establishment Clause, and I hope I’ve made clear why it’s not germane, though I’m troubled that the OP’s last post sort of repeats the same erroneous analysis.

Right. I was referring to the link the Op posted in post #9.

I came to the same conclusion, based on the context of his/her other observations stated in his/her other posts, but I was hoping the OP could do some “quotes” from the link that didn’t work for me, so I could see the “nuances” of the OP’s question/argument better.

When a link doesn’t work (or if I get lazy and don’t bother to read it… ), I have to make assumptions… and sometimes those assumptions turn out to be wrong.