Well, as I write this question, it would appear that Texas is preparing to execute a man for whom there is some reasonable doubt of his guilt for the particular crime that he will be killed for.

I have no doubts that the nation of Israel practiced the death penalty, and no New Testament author wrote against it. And I admit an almost glee to the execution years ago of Ted Bundy (I have some personal connections to a couple of his murders in Florida). But I still wonder if the death penalty is proper in our criminal justice system, a system where justice isn't blind to money. There can be no doubt that we have a criminal justice system corrupted by money and maybe even by racism. Let's face it, would O.J. gotten off without his high priced lawyers?

And though I once we have switched my view on the death penalty if we could straighten out inequities in the criminal justice system, a recent radio broadcast by Charles Colson caused me pause. Colson, who is speaking at this summer's NACC, has come out against the death penalty for an interesting reason I never before considered until a couple of weeks ago. Colson, who runs a large international prison ministry as well as Breakpoint radio ministry, makes the argument that to execute criminals shortens the time that they might come to repentance and accept Jesus.

So, the question is "Can we justify the use of the death penalty in our society where it is certainly adminstrated unevenly with regards to wealth?". Furthermore, as Christians, should we oppose the death penalty on the grounds it cuts off opportunities to reach death row with the gospel?

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Answers

Mark.....

Your anti-Bush "bent" is glaring.

I think you would be better advised to be "Scripturally" swayed as opposed to "media" swayed.

Mark....surely you are bright enough to see this whole thing was "media" created because to date....they can't dig up a thing on Bush.

In fact, when I see that 70% of the American people are in favor of capital punishment.....that gives me some reason for optimism.

In the history of the death penalty in this country...there is NOT ONE SINGLE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE.....that an innocent person has been executed.

Jim Spinnati was right on the money.....man did not ordain capital punishment....God did. And....to add to Jim's scripture.....Romans 13 makes this abudantly clear.

I think as Christians.....we ought to concentrate more on the topic of justice and think more about the victims who did not enjoy the benefit of being injected to sleep.

Amos 5:24: "But let justice roll like waters."

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

John.....

I appreciate your humor as usual.

But really......the book has always had a heavy impact with me. It's a great book because it speaks to so many social injustices as well as spiritual digression.

I think, also, it has weighed heavy on me, because our society has lost any concept of justice. It became glaring with the "O.J. Case".....and has just gotten progressively worse.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Mark....

First.....Ralph Nader?? (Tell me it ain't so.)

Second.....not one single shread of evidence that any innocent person has ever been executed.

A pure media inspired hysteria with a political agenda. Pure and simple!!!

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Not one single shred of evidence that an innocent man or woman has been executed.

It's a smokescreen!!

My only beef with the death penalty....is that there ain't more of them!!!

One appeal.......within 30 days.....if that fails.....execution in one week. That's gives you a whole week to "prepare to meet your God."

That way.....we are talking a few months as opposed to 19 years!!! Maybe then....people will remember the real victims....which are the only victims.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

I don't think an innocent man was executed.

Having spent a fair amount of time in jail ministries....it was always interesting.....I never met a guilty man in jail. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WAS INNOCENT!!!! (They told me so!!)

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Be careful not to quote Chharles Colson, he is not Christian Church- you might be black balled by some in this forum and those who oppose him from speaking at the NACC.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Man didn't istitute the death penalty, God did. Genesis 9:6.

Dr. J

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Danny;

You're really into Amos lately, I see. :-)

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Danny,

My position on the death penalty, opposed to it NOT ON THE GROUNDS IT IS UNSCRIPTURAL but rather on the grounds that we have a God that values fairness and that our system is obviously bias by money and race, dates to when Dubya was nothing more than a failed businessman propped up by those trying to use him to get to his daddy.

And the death penalty is supported by 60%, not 70% (I see you read USA Today, whose polls are always obviously flawed, -- if you want to know why, write me).

And, GORE ALSO SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY (not that I plan to vote for him). Or did you not know that?

Again, Danny, the issue isn't whether the scripture permits it, I readily concede that, I have read the Bible cover to cover in multiple translations at least a dozen times (the NT probably many more times than that) and it is clear on that point. But the Bible is also clear that our God is a God of justice, a justice not just defined as punishment for criminal acts, but justice in the fair and even treatment of people, ESPECIALLY when it comes to matters of poor and rich. Our system is clearly bias against those without money to pay for their "justice". I don't know how one can be an informed citizen of this country and not be aware of that. So, this issue for me, until recently anyway, is that we should simply SUSPEND the use of the death penalty until the justice system is corrected. This isn't an issue (to me) of whether necessarily innocent people have died, but an issue of equity.

And Danny, do you think that I am so shallow as to let some "anti-Bush" sentiment drive my politics? My politics is driven by my faith, a faith that comes from what I believe. I believe what I believe, it's what makes me what I am. I did not make it, no, it is making me.

And since you think you know me so well, Danny, why don't you just try and guess my ideal candidate for president is? I will give you a hint, he (ok two hints, he is a he) has run for nomination by his party in the last 12 years. I would be curious if you could even come close.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Nader??? not even close. Strike one.

Second, it's not about whether the innocent have died, though I grow more appalled the more I think about the polls that show Americans believe that some innocent people have been executed yet they support the death penalty (a Dallas Morning News poll was released yesterday showing that 75% of Texans support the death penalty and 57% believe innocent (of the particular crime they are sentenced for) people have been executed -- so at least 32% of Texans support the DP despite their belief that the wrong person died for the crime). It's about uneven justice. If we are going to do something as irreversible as execution, let's do it equitably.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Mark:

You have said:

"It's about uneven justice. If we are going to do something as irreversible as execution, let's do it equitably."

Do you mean from this to tell us that it is not the death penalty that you are oppopsing but inequities in the system that condemns someone to death? In other words, are you saying that if we are absolutely certian that the person to be executed is without doubt quity of the crime of which he has been accused that it is absolutely just and right to put him to death?

If this is what you are saying, why are you complaining about the "penalty of death" when it is really the inequities in justice that concerns you?

I ask this because it seems from your following statements that it is the "death penaly" itself, regardless of whether or not the system has justly proven the quilt of the party which will be executed, that you are opposed to. You have said:

"Colson, who runs a large international prison ministry as well as Breakpoint radio ministry, makes the argument that to execute criminals shortens the time that they might come to repentance and accept Jesus."

Now if you agree with Mr. Colsen's position you would be against the death penalty whether the person to be executed is actually guilty or not. According to this position, even if one like "Ted Bundy" who was without question quilty of killing over 100 women should not have been executed because it shortened his "time that he might come to repentence".

Then you said:

"Furthermore, as Christians, should we oppose the death penalty on the grounds it cuts off opportunities to reach death row with the gospel?"

Now this comment ignores the simple fact that we are all on death row! We all had better turn from evil and obtain mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ regardless of just how long we will be allowed to stay on "death row". If God shortens that time there is nothing any of us can do about it. The victims of these evil men were on "death row" like the rest of us and these killers had no compunction of conscience whatsoever to shortening their time on "death row". Looking at how "diligent we often appear to be in carring the gospel to those on "death row" in this world I would imaging that if God waited for them to hear the gosp[el before he "executes" them they would never be executed!

WE need to know that the "death angel" is coming for us all whether we are criminals in a cell called "death row" or sinners in a world sentenced to death and awaiting execution we cannot avoid his certian approach. The only clemency that is available in this world is the mercy we find in Christ. If such a criminal obeys the gospel and becomes a Christian, should he then be allowed to escape the just payment due for his crime? If he is really a christian he will insist upon justice. This issue is not just "political" in nature but involves many things that we must give our attention to. A shallow discussion of it is unbecoming of the saints.

Now if you accept this position you have state above you are still saying that the quilt of the person has nothing to do with the matter because even if he is beyond doubt guilty of terrible crimes and has executed several people by his own perverted sense that he somehow has that right we cannot execute him because we would thereby take away their chance to hear the Gospel.

If it is true that you object to the death penalty regardless of whether one is genuinely guilty of crimes deserving death, then your complaints concerning the inequities of the system is but a ruse. Even if we proved conclusively that there are no such inequities in our system of justice you would still be opposed to the death penelty.

So why confuse the issue. Why not discuss the death penalty itself. Determine if it is right to execute a person that is without question quitly of a a crime deserving of death. Once you have decided that issue then discuss whether or not our system is equitable enough for us to insure that we do not execute innocent people. For if the death penalty is wrong, it should not be done even if our justice systm is completely eqitable and capable of proving guilt beyond resonable doubt. If it is right, then and only then should we consider whether our justice system is capable of finding the truth.

In fact, if our justice system is incapable of deciding cpaital cases with certianty on what basis could we allow any form of punishment? If we cannot have confidence in our justice system are we justified in punishing anyone for any crime because we can never be sure that we have not punished an innocent person?

The truth is that you are only clouding the issue with this question of equity. For the issue is the "death penalty". It is not whether or not our system is capable of accurately determining guilt.

If our system is so poor we should be concerned about any person being punished whether that person is being punished with death or life in prison or a 20 year sentence.

So seperate the two for they are not directly related. If the death penalty is right it is right period. If the justice system is corrupt the problem is not with the penalty but with the means of determining guilt or innocence.

So I would like to know which one you are concerned about? This thread you attempt to discuss the death penalty but you end up discussing injustices in the system. These are two seperate themes.

If the death penalty is right but we have injustices in our system then let us accept the death penalty and immediately begin improving our system and make sure that we condemn only those who are quity of crimes worthy of death are executed. But if the death penalty is wrong let us oppose it with vigor without any regard to whether our system is equitable or not.

But do not pretend that the death penalty is wrong only becuase our system is not perfect.

The death penalty imposed upon an innocent man is always wrong. But so is any penalty imposed upon an innocent man. Shall we therefore do away with all punishment for fear of piunishing innocent men? This is the easy way out. It is far easier to remove the punishment for crime than to take responsibility for our lack of concern for the truth and making absolutely sure that one is in fact guilty before he is punished for a crime. But the elimination of the "death penalty" will not correct a single flaw in our system of justice. Instead it would encourage and ensure one of the greatest forms of injustice. It would allow men like Ted Bundy to kill innocent people with impunity. God has plainly ordained civil government as the executors of his "wrath" upon evil doers. (Romans 13). That person has had ample oppotunity to repent and turn from evil and he has by his crimes prevented his victims from ever hearing the gospel and repenting of their sins. It is not therefore unreasonable for God through the instrumentality of his "avenger of wrath" to shorten their opportunity to repent as well. If God has so ordain it then so let it be. In fact, some of these victims may have actually died "lost" because they never heard and obeyed the gospel and obtained the remission of their sins. But now we are concerned that these men sholud not have their time "shortened". Our responsibility is to offer the gospel to them. If God shortens their time by sending his "avanger of wrath" (Romans 13) to punish these evil doers then it is none of our business.

Just a few thoughts on the matter. Do with them what you will.

your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Danny:

Strong death penalty supporter here. But . . .

While there may not be any evidence that an innocent person has died (and I think there is some legit difference of opinion about whether there is), it is CERTAINLY true that there have been some who spent time on death row only to be exonerated before they were executed. Your 30-day plan would definately have killed some innoncent people in those cases.

I have had a stake in this issue in a couple of ways. For one, a close friend of mine was murdered a few years ago. Her murderer sits on death row in Central Prison here in Raleigh. So I can speak as one of the victim (or at least god-friend-of-the-victim status). On the other hand, I have an uncle who had the good fortune to have received his conviction for murder at the time in the early 70's that the state death penalty statutes were still being worked out (after havening been declared largely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), and he fell into a sentence of life in prison rather than death. So I can speak from the side of the family of the convicted criminal.

I tell you that not to bolster any argument, because it doesn't, but simply to say that this is no knee-jerk reaction. It's an issue I've had to deal with, up close and personal.

Like you, I support the death penalty, and wish it were more streamlined so as to be more effective and efficient. Like Mark, I think that it is used in almost a haphazard way in some states, and would want to see the process be made more sure.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

No, Lee, no. For that matter, Danny too.

The issue is not guilt or innocence. It is a system in which some murderers get off or lesser sentences and others don't and get the death penalty even though the evidence is comparable. I don't know if you examined in closely, but the evidence in the Gary Graham case would have at most resulted in a lesser sentence for a wealther client, and I would contend would have gotten him off had he the money to pay a decent lawyer than a court appointed lawyer of questionable quality. The issue is sentencing the poor criminal to the death penalty when the wealthy criminal would have gotten 10 years.

Now Lee, you go off on a tangent. I stated a comment of Chuck Colson, one that has given me pause to think. Not necessarily agree with, but certainly a statement worth mulling. You then ascribe a question to me as a statement of opinion. LEE IT WAS A QUESTION. Look at it again:

"..., should we oppose the death penalty on the grounds it cuts off opportunities to reach death row with the gospel?"

You then say "this comment ...". LEE IT WAS A QUESTION.

Again, LISTEN (this isn't just to Lee): I am NOT questioning if we regularly kill innocent people via the death penalty. I am NOT saying we should necessarily abolish the death penalty. If you look at it as I intended, the issue I am raising is insuring that the person making $10,000 per year has no less or more a chance of being convicted of murder and sentenced to die as the person making $100,000 per year, given similar evidence and circumstances. Does that mean that there are more or fewer executions? Depends on what level of evidence and what level of brutality, etc. you want to set the bar at.

Now Lee, you also attribute to me the opinion that someone who becomes a Christian should get off of the death penalty. Where did you get that? Are you anticipating a position I did not take, and have never taken? Jeffery Dahmer supposedly became a Christian -- so what? He still must face the music. I was disguisted a couple of years back when Pat Robertson tried to convince Bush not to execute Tucker (female, brutally murdered her husband). His basis for doing so was her acceptance of the (ok, maybe "a") gospel. I so disagreed with that.

Lee, the more I reread your response, the more it reveals to me that you have me stereotyped. Thinking back, your other notes do the same. You take my questions as a position, like I am saying "don't you agree" rather than asking a question. You attribute to me positions I have never taken, but in your superficial understanding of a question or thought of mine you will label me all sorts of positions because of your stereotypes. Usually it is a waste of time to spend on someone who simplifies the world around them into stereotypes like your last few directed at me do. I've wasted enough time replying to you this week.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Danny,

Like I said to Lee, my concern isn't guilt or innocence of those executed in the last 20 years or so. I do express surprise at those who think we might have killed an innocent person and still support the death penalty.

And while I asked the question "should we not use the death penalty in order to provide more time to come to Christ" or something like that, it is just a question, one is not seriously discussing on this thread. I have not formulated an opinion there, just admit I consider it an intriguing position.

And if you are really understanding what I am saying on inequities, you know the one possible result would be more death penalty sentences. if the economic middle and upper classes guilty of capital offenses were convicted and sentenced to death at the same rate at the economic lower class, the sizes of the death rows would jump up.

I think a little more "common sense" into the system could do the trick. With more common sense, we could avoid the lawyer tricks that the well-paid lawyers know, we could avoid conviction overturns that are based on technicalities, etc. With less basis for appeal, the faster the appeal process would operate. With more of the common sense I am talking about, court dockets would shrink (including those of appeal courts), as trials and appeals would move faster. And the conviction rate of the wealthier goes up.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

And Danny, maybe 30 days to file, but in our system criminal appeals are a different beast than criminal defense. Most of the convicted switch lawyers to a specialist in appeals. Is that right or wrong? Who knows? And most the slowdown in the appeals process is the overloaded court dockets, with judges who have little incentive to push a case through. Lawyer motions to delay are approved for the trivialest of reasons.

And even if you could overcome all those problems, I agree with Sam, cutting it down to 30 days is just asking for mistakes to happen.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Mark:

You have said:

Now Lee, you go off on a tangent. I stated a comment of Chuck Colson, one that has given me pause to think. Not necessarily agree with, but certainly a statement worth mulling. You then ascribe a question to me as a statement of opinion. LEE IT WAS A QUESTION. Look at it again:

Look at this again, Mark:

Now if you agree with Mr. Colsen's position you would be against the death penalty whether the person to be executed is actually guilty or not. According to this position, even if one like "Ted Bundy" who was without question quilty of killing over 100 women should not have been executed because it shortened his "time that he might come to repentence".

I hope that you will notice that I clearly said IF YOU AGREE WITH MR. COLSENS POSITION. Now any thinking person can see that I have not ascribed his position to you. And since you put it in the form of a question I was not sure whether you agreed or not with his position or if you were suggesting that we should agree with his position therefore I said IF.

Then you said:

"Furthermore, as Christians, should we oppose the death penalty on the grounds it cuts off opportunities to reach death row with the gospel?"

Now the fact that you put this in the form of a question does not in any way negate the fact that it is a comment upon which you are not sure. Since you did not affirm it definitely to be something that you were sure about I replied two paragraphs further in reference to this question with these words:

Now if you accept this position you have state above you are still saying that the quilt of the person has nothing to do with the matter because even if he is beyond doubt guilty of terrible crimes and has executed several people by his own perverted sense that he somehow has that right we cannot execute him because we would thereby take away their chance to hear the Gospel.

Notice that I once again said IF you accept this position. Now that makes it very clear that I have not ascribed that position to you. My words applied to you ONLY IF you accept that position. By means of this word IF I have indicated clearly that you may or may not accept such a position. IF you DO NOT accept it then my words would not apply to you, now would they?

And in another place I said:

If it is true that you object to the death penalty regardless of whether one is genuinely guilty of crimes deserving death, then your complaints concerning the inequities of the system is but a ruse. Even if we proved conclusively that there are no such inequities in our system of justice you would still be opposed to the death penelty.

Therefore you falsely accuse me of ascribing arguments to you that you have not made. I have used the word IF throughout my response because you had not been clearly stating that any of what you said were actually a position for which you were willing to take responsibility.

Therefore I have not misunderstood you. I was simply asking to clarify and answering in the case that you in fact agreed with these statements wherein I replied with the words IF YOU AGREE and IF YOU ACCEPT.

Then you say:

Now Lee, you also attribute to me the opinion that someone who becomes a Christian should get off of the death penalty. Where did you get that? Are you anticipating a position I did not take, and have never taken?

Now Brother Mark, this is what I said about this subject:

If such a criminal obeys the gospel and becomes a Christian, should he then be allowed to escape the just payment due for his crime? If he is really a Christian he will insist upon justice. This issue is not just "political" in nature but involves many things that we must give our attention to.

This was my question and my statement concerning that matter. I said absolutely nothing to indicate that you held a view different from the one that I expressed. I said nothing whatsoever to indicate that you believed that if a person on death row became a Christian that he should be excused from punishment. I made this comment in connection with my words related to the question that you had ask which I had already responded with the statement IF you agree with that position. If you do not agree with that position as implied in your question  then my comment would not apply to you in the least.

So it is you Brother Mark that has allowed your imagination to run away with you. I have not ascribed any beliefs or arguments to you in my post. Anyone who can read can see it. Therefore Brother Mark, you are the one that is doing the stereo Typing especially since it is obvious that you assumed from my other comments to you this week that I would some how attack you in this way. But I have not done such to you in any place and especially not here. But you have stereo typed me as a person who does such things and have therefore seen me doing them even though I have not even come close to doing the things of which you falsely accuse me. You prove your stereotyping of me with these words:

Thinking back, your other notes do the same. You take my questions as a position, like I am saying "don't you agree" rather than asking a question. You attribute to me positions I have never taken, but in your superficial understanding of a question or thought of mine you will label me all sorts of positions because of your stereotypes. Usually it is a waste of time to spend on someone who simplifies the world around them into stereotypes like your last few directed at me do. I've wasted enough time replying to you this week.

You accuse me of stereo typing you but you give not any evidence whatsoever to prove that such is true. You do not even explain exactly which stereo type I am supposed to have placed you in. You are completely unable to prove that I have done any such thing. Answer me this. Just what stereotypical type have I classed you in and please show the words that I have spoken which prove that I have done any such thing.

Now I do not doubt that you will not waste your time attempting to prove that I am guilty of the charges that you have been more than willing to waste your time falsely accusing me of being guilty!

It is not unusual for one making false allegations to be willing to waste time with any real effort to prove what he already knows to be absolutely false.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Brother Danny:

How right you are in your following words:

I don't think an innocent man was executed.

Having spent a fair amount of time in jail ministries....it was always interesting.....I never met a guilty man in jail. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WAS INNOCENT!!!! (They told me so!!)

I agree with you Brother Danny. This man was convicted in a court of Law. According to Governor Bush. His case was reviewed 33 Times! And this involved 23 judges in courts higher than the one in which he was convicted. The eyewitness to the crime has never change her testimony that she saw him commit the crime.

Now it is true, none of us were in the courtroom observing this trial. At least no one in this forum has yet claimed to attend the trial. We did not hear the case that was presented against him. THE media was there but they are not the court and they have an agenda that could easily and has often in the past prejudiced cases against the truth. One only needs to remember how they almost managed to try and convict Mr. Jewels in Atlanta for bombing that he had absolutely nothing to do with and he eventually sued and won because he was an innocent man being tried in the press instead of a court of Law. In this case the Law prevented the media from influencing the outcome of a trial. I am amazed at the number of people willing to doubt the quality and justice that we have in the legal system of this country but do not hesitate in the least to accept the unsubstantiated allegations of the media when they claim that this man that was executed in Texas was innocent. Even though they know that the left leaning media has an agenda in this election year that is motivating them to do all that they can to make Governor Bush look like he is unfit to be president. Despite the fact that they know the media has an agenda that causes them to at least have a reason to be biased they would believe a biased media before they would accept the judgment of a court of Law that allowed this man to be judged by a jury of his peers and whose case was reviewed 33 times involving 23 judges and the board of paroles and pardons in Texas. They do all of this despite the fact that the Governor of Texas does not actually have the power by Texas Law to overturn the decision of that board. There is no doubt that he certainly has a powerful influence over them but he cannot overturn their decision. The evidence and the arguments of the Lawyers that sought to gain a stay were heard and this mans case was reviewed over and over and over again and again and again. The decision was the same every time. They saw no merit whatsoever in this mans claims of innocence. Now no matter how often this mans case was reviewed by how many judges it is always possible for someone to argue that he still could have been innocent. This argument could be made always because we know human nature all too well. We know it is surely possible that everyone who reviewed his case could have been wrong. But they seldom stop to ask the question just how PROBABLE it really is that this many people reviewed his case and not one actually decided that he should be given a reprieve or a pardon or a stay of execution. But the media comes along and cast doubt upon our system and many are ready to believe them. I never cease to be amazed at this.

Now none should think that I have no experience with these things. My own Brother was convicted of killing his wife. He was not sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison. I do know just how the justice system works and the courts justly found my brother guilty and he comes up for parole every so often. Our family has accepted the judgment of the court because we are Christians and the evidence proved him to be guilty. Though we love him very much it is right that he pay the price required by Law for his crime. If he had been given the death penalty I can tell you now even my own mother would not have fought against it because it is the justice of God that one pay for such crimes. And I can tell you that my mother was a devout Christian all of he adult life. She was grieved and suffered great sorrow but not once did she ever ask that her own son be given any special treatment above anyone else under the law. Now he was given the opportunity for parole because of the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it, which I cannot go into, hear. Lawyers even argued for him over and over that he was not allowed to have competent counsel because his court appointed attorney had never tried a murder case before. But we knew he was guilty for he even admitted it to us. Now if he had been given the death penalty and the governor of Alabama was a republican running against Gore and his time came to be executed the media would swarm around the prison and they would be calling for a stay and claiming that he was not represented at his trial by competent counsel. But they would all be wrong. That young Lawyer that defended my brother did all that he could do and did manage to prevent my brother from receiving the death penalty. But they would not care, for they are not interested in the criminal and his welfare. They are only interested in him to the extent that he can help them embarrass the candidate that they do not want us to vote for in November. I do not know if any of this will help concerning these matters. But we had better wake up and understand that we have the absolute best legal system in this world. No one has better protections under the Law than we have in this country. It is not perfect and never will be because no group of men can perfectly do the job that God had originally intended to do himself. He is the only one that can rule perfectly over us and we would rather have a king like the nations around us. I am speaking figuratively. Just remember, if you are constantly trying to fix things that are not broken you will inevitably break them.

Sure cautious and judicious improvements are wise but they should be applied to areas where improvements are needed. Therefore we should not jump on the fix it bandwagon every time the biased media cries foul in order to manipulate the minds and actions of the people in favor of the candidate of their choice.

I say these things just to provide some thoughts for your consideration. Let us be busy about the Lords work and the spread of the gospel of Christ for where Christ reigns there is peace and harmony and crime is not a problem. Where he does not reign there is a need for Gods avenger of wrath" to prevent evil men from utterly destroying themselves.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Mark, you say...

"But the Bible is also clear that our God is a God of justice, a justice not just defined as punishment for criminal acts, but justice in the fair and even treatment of people, ESPECIALLY when it comes to matters of poor and rich. Our system is clearly bias against those without money to pay for their "justice". I don't know how one can be an informed citizen of this country and not be aware of that. So, this issue for me, until recently anyway, is that we should simply SUSPEND the use of the death penalty until the justice system is corrected. This isn't an issue (to me) of whether necessarily innocent people have died, but an issue of equity."

Can you point to a time in the history of mankind that any man-run justice system has been equitable? Should we suspend Gods will because man is unjust?

An Aside: Today, many would point to the "Mosaic Law" as unfair and unjustly harsh. I believe that many Christians would be astonished at the number of offenses that received the death penalty.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

E.Lee said, "Let us be busy about the Lord?s work and the spread of the gospel of Christ for where Christ reigns there is peace and harmony and crime is not a problem." Amen.

There have been far too many accusations, provable and unprovable, on this thread. We have all violated some biblical principles here, and in other threads. I have seen in done in other internet forums. We forget that if a brother offends us, we should take that to him in private. Just because the offense is public doesn't mean we shouldn't still take that back to him in private. Jesus said nothing about taking public offenses to the brother publically in Matthew 18; it is an unconditional statement about doing it in private, just the two of you.

I am among been guilty of taking offenses back publicly, and publicly apologize for doing that. I am sure in all cases, it was a simple misunderstanding -- we cannot hear voice tone and body language in this forum, so our mood too often puts tone over the words written as we read them.

Perhaps as we write and read, we should remember this exercise: Say aloud the sentence "I didn't say you were ugly" six times, each time emphasizing a different word, e.g. "*I* didn't say you were ugly, I *didn't* say you were ugly, ..., I didn't say you were *ugly*". Note, six different meaning from the same six word sentence.

*************************************** And Danny, the answer is "Jack Kemp", who ran in 1988. Don't agree with every position (I think he goes too far with tax cuts), but I agree with his approach to positions. Jack Kemp is a true "compassionate conservative".

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Opps, to general. I said "we all have violated". That is a public accusation. I meant to say "a number of us have violated". Sorry.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

According to Mosaic Law, rebellious teenagers got the death sentence. I think that would go a long way to solving today's gang and drug problems. =)

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000