I always had two topics I swore I wouldn't discuss mostly because I am confused as to where I stand on them. I'm going to break my own edict as you people have been so good about controversial topics. Here goes: I have mixed emotions on the death penalty. On one hand there is the "eye for an eye" but on the other there is the "repent and be forgiven". I have come to the point of combining the two. If you have to execute an attacker to protect yourself or family than I say "eye for an eye". However, if a criminal is brought to justice wearing chains than he is of no further threat to us. I believe his execution is premeditated murder. The cost of lifetime incarceration is our stupity. I always thought we should put them on one island and let them feast on each others bones. That is the example that God gave us when he dealt with Cain. Now, George W Bush has built his whole career by killing prisoners by the hundreds. Basically that is what he is famous for. Joe has told us he witnessed Bush visionably shaken the day they executed a woman. Yet the executions continued right up until ?? That is right--I have not heard of one single execution in Texas since he announced his intent to seek office. Maybe they are being kept quiet or Texas has run out of people to kill. And that my friends is my REAL dilemna. If the death penalty is so moral than why is not so moral when we run for office. I cannot vote for a man whose character is only visible when the cameras are or minipulates the press to quiet his age old bad policies. Don't get me wrong--I have no one to vote for unless Colin Powell loses his mind and runs for office. When you ponder the morality of execution does this 180 degree turn in ethics bother you ?

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), July 30, 2000

Answers

Alot about Bush bothers me....but my opinions might well bother lots of folks on this board. His stand on pro choice for example. As far as I've seen, the only thing Bush and I agree upon is the gun issue. But will he switch horses midstream on that issue as well? As for doing 180 turn, call me synical, but there is a reason they say 'honest politcian' is an oxymoron. I think our sad future is set upon choosing the lesser of all evils.

-- Sue (sulandherb@aol.com), July 30, 2000.

Alot about Bush bothers me....but my opinions might well bother lots of folks on this board. His stand on pro choice for example. As far as I've seen, the only thing Bush and I agree upon is the gun issue. But will he switch horses midstream on that issue as well? As for doing 180 turn, call me cynical, but there is a reason they say 'honest politcian' is an oxymoron. I think our sad future is set upon choosing the lesser of all evils.

-- Sue (sulandherb@aol.com), July 30, 2000.

This is a sticky one. We don't have the death penalty in Canada -- some think this is a mistake -- but I don't know that I agree. I know that I don't agree with letting them OUT again, and I can tell you EXACTLY how I feel about the vacation resorts they call prisons these days -- but I just can't come to terms with the death of someone who is chained and drugged.

Take the case of David Milgaard. Don't know if any of you folks down there have heard of him. This young man was convicted twenty years ago at about 19 years old of the rape and murder of a young nursing student. Evidence was circumstantial, but because this young man had a reputation for hanging around in the neighborhood where her body was found, and had been convicted of some petty crimes (I believe he had a B&E conviction -- whatever it was, it wasn't a violent crime). Truth was, the police wanted to get the case taken care of quickly. They did. He didn't stand a chance.

If we had the death penalty here, he would be dead. Pretty good thing we didn't, because it turns out he didn't do it -- but he spent twenty years in prison for it. The "new" technology of DNA proved his innocence a couple of years ago (they then released him with an APOLOGY), and also found the real killer -- a man with a long record of violence against women -- who had died in prison.

This, I think, is why I'm hesitant on the issue. How many innocents would have to die to make it a bad thing? Is one okay???

-- Tracy (trimmer@westzone.com), July 30, 2000.

My attitude on the death penalty is this. It is biblical and God institued it in the law. Forgiving our brother has nothing to do with him paying the price for his deeds. If a man kills another man it is just and fair that he recieve the same punishment. The death penalaty was common in the day of Christ, and yet he never spoke out against it and submitted to it even when he had not committed a crime. In addition the disciples never attacked the death penalty, even when stephen was stoned. In fact, Christians were told to submit to those God had sent to punish evil doers, as was brought up inanother thread. kind of funny that being pro-choice would be brought up on a thread about punishing felons. It is quite a world we live in where most people who would give a murderer a chance at life would also deny an innocent child the right to live. What does that mean for this world. I guess it is because murderers just don't make things as inconvenient for us as a little baby does. They stay in jail and don't impose them selves upon any but a very selct few who subsequently lose their lives. All I can say is I will be voting for Bush, because he is pro-life, because he is pro-gun, because he is not a Clintonite, and because when it has really come down to it on issues like the death penalty he has stuck to his guns against all those media idiots. Granted he is not perfect, but do you really want Gore in office? I am very happy to vote for someone who was a rather successful Govenor, and a Christian one at that. I am sure that he is not a perfect man. What man is? But we finally have a chance at some kind of change. maybe not the radical change we would all like to see, but I feel that there is almost no place to go but up. God willing.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), July 30, 2000.

Little Bit, it's like people that have two bumper stickers on their car, "Pro-choice" and "Meat is murder". What's up with that???

-- Patti (trigger@mcn.net), July 30, 2000.

I beg politely to differ..Jesus DID,indeed,speak out against the Old Testament law stating that a woman accused of adultery should be taken outside the city gate and stoned to death.."let he who is without sin cast the first stone."...The subject of capital punishment has always been one of deep concern and prayer for me.Jesus said that there are only two great commandments.."love God with your whole heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself." Who then is your neighbor???? I believe my neighbor is every person. Every person, according to the Bible, was made in the image of God, therefore I am commanded to love everyone as I love myself.Jesus also commanded us to forgive those who have harmed us.That is good enough for me.I believe 100% that there are numerous people who cannot live in society without causing grievous harm and perpetuating evil..they justly need to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives..and those days,months or years should be left to God, not man.These days and months and years give these people an opportunity to ask for repentance from God, who is the only one fit to judge the value of our lives.After working in a maximum security prison,I have had child molesters,murderers,and mass murders come to believe in the all-forgiving love that Jesus has for each one of us...no, if I sat on the parole board I would not free most of these people to re-enter society..but I strenuously defend that God alone decides when a life is to be ended,not man or woman.Bush or Gore, to me is a choice akin to "Sham" or "Fake"..neither is acceptable..God bless...

-- Lesley (martchas@gateway.net), July 30, 2000.

You all make valid points. There are definitely innocent people excuted in the United States, but that does not justify abolishing capital punishment. Death is a far more humane punishment than twenty years in prison. Here's how I see it. I'm not a religious man, but I uphold high morals. We have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nevermind that all governments usurp those rights, we still have them. They are not conferred by the state, but are simply inherent. Jefferson said they were self- evident and endowed by the creator to all. Now......you have the right to do what ever you choose (freedom), but that right ends where your neighbor's rights begin. If you kill someone, you have violated his rights to life, liberty, etc. and forfeited your own right to life. Convicted murderers, rapists, etc. have no rights. They deserve to die. I realize there will be innocent people executed. I also realize that the system is heavily tilted towards the wealthy and powerful. O.J. walks. This is not reason enough to throw out the system. Yes, it could use some tweaking, but it is still the best in the world. Let's have some more opinions!

-- Jim (catchthesun@yahoo.com), July 30, 2000.

In my opinion, this verse does not speak out against the death penalty. It speaks out against those men who were going to kill that woman simply to tempt Christ into disobeying the law. That was what this was about. Christ did indeed show mercy to this woman, and he forgave her sin with the admonition to sin no more. And each of those men were convicted in their heart of their sin. Was there sin obeying the law? No their sin was using the law to their own ends? To me what this verse proves, is not that the death penalty is wrong, but that the people in and of themselves cannot uphold the law, and must be justified by Christ. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Romans 8;3-4. Christ was not attacking the righteousness of the law, but but the sinfullness of the hearts determined to carry it out.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), July 30, 2000.

Joel:

Go back through your back issues of the newspapers. There have been several executions in Texas since Bush announced his run for the Presidency. One he stayed for renewed DNA evidence testing, which apparently proved to be inconclusive.

Personally I think spending the rest of your life in a maximum security, minimum amount of privilges prison to me would be worse than the death penality.

-- Ken S. (scharabo@aol.com), July 30, 2000.

There have been quite a few executions since George W. hit the campaign trail, and I've seen every one of them on the national news. The only thing I have against these executions is they wait 20 years to do it!

-- ~Rogo, South Central Texas (rogo2020@yahoo.com), July 30, 2000.

Perhaps if they start doing DNA the first couple of months someone is in jail, the taxpayer won't be burdened with so many years of paying for all the appeals that prisoners are allowed to go thru. (Something else that needs changing.) Hmmmm, wonder where all that money would wind up!

A guy fell thru the roof of a business he was going to rob. He broke a leg. He sued the owner of the business and WON!

-- ~Rogo (rogo2020@yahoo.com), July 30, 2000.

Actually, there really have been a lot of executions in Texas recently. I think we executed at least 3 in June. As for the DNA testing Ken makes reference to, the DNA showed that the man DID molest his stepdaughter immediately before she was killed. He got the needle. I believe that meant that he died much easier than the little girl did. As for the two women that got the death penalty in the last couple of years, one admitted to killing another woman with a pick ax. The other woman had the charming habit of taking out life insurance policies on her husbands, then planting them in the front yard flower garden. When her time came to be executed, she wanted to claim that both men had abused her and that was why she killed them and used them for rose fertilizer. Also, in Texas, the only way there can be a stay of execution is if the Parole Board recommends it. The members of the parole board are scattered throughout the state and usually communicate by telephone. I don't like GW Shrub either, but the fact of the matter is, the governor of Texas can only act on executions if the Parole Board gives him the opportunity. And actually, the Governor of Texas position is more for show than substance. Most of the actual governing is done by the Lt. Governor.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), July 30, 2000.

Was it Amnesty International that came out with the statement last year that Texas had more executions (capital punishment)for the previous year than most nations in the world? I think it was either more or tied with either Iran or Afghanistan.

Anyone rememeber this quote? It totally amazed me. Not that anyone cares what opinion the rest of the world has of us, of course...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), July 31, 2000.

btw, when I just posted that last item, as soon as I hit submit, my peecee crashed....hmmmm....I guess I'm fool enough to try it again, so here goes...has this happened to anyone else? Is it just Joel's posts? Am I paranoid? :)

-- sheepish (notmyaddressnot thistime@oops.com), July 31, 2000.

Joel, That is a pretty intense question. There are people out there who kill without remorse and repeatedly, who kill and torture innocents for fun or to join a gang. But who am I to decide what the punishment should be? And should politicians decide who lives and who dies? I used to be so very interested in politics, then I slowly realized these people are bought and paid for by the wealthy. I see no difference in any of them, regardless of political party, they are all liars and crooks. but, what can I do about it? I vote, for what it is worth, and it's not worth much. karen

-- Karen Mauk (dairygoatmama@hotmail.com), July 31, 2000.

I am for the death penalty, not in it's current form however. If sentenced to death, it should be swift and sure. The way it is done now is a sham, each person sentenced to die has the hope or belief that death will not come, at least not for a long time. And typically those with this type of lifestyle do not count on a long life span anyway. And I would disagree with Lesley on several points. When the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Jesus, as Little Bit stated, they were in essence trying to set him up, that they could accuse him. And Jewish Law stated there must be an eyewitness, and both the man and the woman were subject to the punishment. Where was the man? The scribes and Pharisees stated, Master, this woman (notice no man) was taken in adultery, in the very act. In the very act, hmmm, interesting, then they must have noticed the man with whom she commited adultery with, and yet he was not brought before Jesus to be stoned. And then a very interesting thing occured when Jesus, not once but twice wrote on the ground, with his finger. Wonder what he wrote? Perhaps a name? or two? or three? I do not know, but the point is Hypocrosy, not judgement. We are obligated,indeed commanded throughout the Bible to judge, righteous judgment. Jesus himself said "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. If you followed that reasoning (of he who is without sin--judgment--cast the first stone) then none could ever judge anything. We would be a people without laws as no one could judge if a law had been broken. I could not judge the character of the man I intend to marry and have babies with, etc.. you get the picture. I believe it is the duty and responsibility of our government to punish wrongdoers and protect the innocent. To do otherwise is an affront to God. "These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him: hands that shed innocent blood" this is the third abomination written that the Lord Hates. Hate is a very strong word. I choose to believe he means it. Biblical principles are consistent throughout the old and new testament. The law was indeed fullfiled and we are no longer under it, but Gods principles have not and will not ever change. I also believe as a follower of Christ that we do a disservice to murderers by imprisoning them as opposed to putting them to death. Have you ever noticed that when a person believes thier life to be near the end, they look to heaven? Given this nature of man, might not they have a better chance of receiving Christ as thier Saviour, if they knew death was imminent? Years spent in prison with time to have one's heart hardened versus the immediate fear (and maybe, repentance) of death? I also believe as Lesley stated, we are to love and to forgive. Just as Christ does us (Praise God!). But his forgiveness does not take away the natural consequences of our sin. We still pay the price. If I had been involved with hard core drugs and ruined my body, that would not go away with forgiveness. The same principle applies to murderers. The consequence remains, forgiveness reigns. Also, if God alone decides when a life is to be ended,why did he give the law in the first place? Is He violating his own principles? Perhaps he knew the evil in mans heart and equipped the innocent with a way to stave off evil overcoming good, so chaos and terror would not reign. And those with the thought of doing evil (murder) would be assured in thier hearts and minds, that if caught and found guilty, death would be swift and sure---how many might then be turned from thier intent to do harm, with the fear of punishment so strong in thier heart? Would they not be better served by this? I think they would. And to reiterate, I do not compare what we have currently, as far as the death penalty, to that which I speak of. I too have prayed and sought the mind of God concerning this issue and have come to peace with the results. God Bless You All! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), July 31, 2000.

Joel, I have never responded to your posts. You seem to be part of a special group and I enjoyed reading them. But I've got to get into this one. The British send criminals to a deserted island and they (the prisoners}have done well with their second chance. We have run out of space and could not do this on a large scale, but maybe on a smaller scale we could. Maybe there are some uninhabited area's left in the world where we could drop them off with minimum rations and they could eek out a living or ...kill each other. I believe in mercy, without us none could live, but consequences to actions must be faced. Aagje

-- Aagje Franken (Backyard@AOL.com), July 31, 2000.

I have a real problem with capital punishment because even the execution of one innocent railroaded by the state (they supposedly act in our name) is the worst murder possible. And by the way we dont even apologize to the person when he has been wrongly incarcerated for umpteen years. We "pardon" him. Any society society that cant admit to making mistakes has a bigger problem. I will find it interesting how the state of Georgia will deal with its possible execution of an innocent man now that one judge has stood up and allowed DNA tests on trial evidence of a now executed man. Usually they refuse as it would prove embarassing to the government if it turned out wrong. Imagine how embarrassed the executed man must feel if he is innocent.

As to using DNA the first couple months of incarceration, how about making it mandatory that if there is slightest chance it can have an impact provide for it at trial. This hiding evidence, playing games stuff that the majority of prosecutors engage in is repulsive. The government should be interested in the TRUTH not putting another notch on some aspiring politician's gunbelt.

Now what really confuses me is both the conservatives and liberal stance on death. The liberals want to ban the death penalty and allow abortians. The conservatives want to rush criminals to death quicker (probably without even a trial if they could) but want to ban abortions. I just think dead is dead.

-- Hermit John (ozarkhermit@pleasedontspamme.com), July 31, 2000.

Hermit John, I had to respond. I am a conservative and I most certainly want a trial. I am in agreement about the use of DNA. It is now available for us to use in determing guilt, lets use it!! As to the statement about conservatives being against abortion and for the death penalty, the issue is guilt or innocence. Babies are innocent---they have not received a trial by jury with all the evidence presented and then sentenced to die, due to the crime they committed. The mother and father are the guilty - but the innocent baby recieves the punishment?!!? I do not understand. And even in cases of rape or incest, the baby remains innocent. Yes, the mother bears the burden of the crime committed by the one who has probably committed many a sex crime and received very little punishment in return. Imagine rape carried the penalty of death. For those of you who support the "choice" to murder the innocent, but oppose death for the guilty, does in not stand to reason that if guilty were fully convinced that if found guilty, death would be swift and sure.... the incidence of rape would certainly decrease!? Therefore, far fewer women would be faced with this horrible situation. That is mercy, we do all that can be done, as a society, to prevent this horrible crime and protect the innocent. We emphatically state, rape will NOT be tolerated. We WILL protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Be warned! As to the reasoning on the part of conservatives regarding this issue, death to one and not the other, I think it is clear. As for the liberal position of death to the innocent and life for the guilty, I can not even begin to understand their reasoning. To be consistent, liberals should either oppose both the murder of the innocent and guilty or support, at the very least, the life of the innocent. As to the argument that the "state" should not be involved in the death of people, in general,I stated my position to that on my above post. In regards to using this argument that killing innocent babies is a private issue, a choice made by the mother...not the state. This is a smoke screen. As the state has made it law of the land, but without the safegaurds of a trial,or providing the executioner...that is left to the mother and her Dr. Hope this clears up the perceived contradiction. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), July 31, 2000.

Pretty provocative explanations of your thoughts, folks. I just have a short quick thing to say and put me in with Lil Bit, Green & Wendy. There have to be some things that are flat out completely and utterly unacceptable in any way shape or form. God may forgive the person, but society that is operating on the physical plane must have penalties for behavior that is so dangerous. I agree with the death penalty for murder (it SHOULD be beyond a shadow of a doubt) and I also would like to see the death penalty for child rapists. The "reform" of these people who sexually violate children is non-existant and I feel there should be ZERO tolerance for it on the part of society.

Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person, and the murderer has a chance to get himself right with God prior to his demise. His victim doesn't have that chance.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), July 31, 2000.

I think DNA testing will soon be mandatory from what I read. And yes, we in Texas have executed several murderers since W. started running. If the national media won't report it, that isn't W's fault. And yes, in the case mentioned where W. gave the stay for the guy to have his DNA tested, or whatever the proper term is, it showed that he did rape the girl just before her death. I can't imagine how someone can compare executing a cold blooded murderer with pulling a near full-term baby out of it's mother and poking a pair of scissors into it's brain, like is done in those partial birth abortions that Clinton and Gore think are so handy as a means of birth control.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 31, 2000.

I have a big problem with are justice system .Yes I do believe in the death penality , as long as its a fair case and there is no doubt .I do have a problem with my hard earned tax dollars being spent to feed and house criminals !The overwhelming evidence will show that there are mostly repeat offenders .If I have to pay for them why not give them a trade while they are in jail , so that when they come out they can earn a living .Same goes for welfare , I don;t mind helping . Lets help them help themselves .They key to stopping lots of crimes and life long welfare is EDUCATION. There should be manditory education and they should also have to work for there housing and food .Lets stop giving everyone a free ride .O.K. you can blast me know ! P.S. forgive any spelling errors " I have a baby on my lap "

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), July 31, 2000.

Wendy, when the government is as perfect and all knowing as God, then I'll trust them to make life and death decisions. Until that time its just a lot of playing politics. Just that chance of one human being, even a not so nice human being, being put to death wrongly in the name of the people (thats us) is too much. I have no problem with life imprisionment with no parole (maybe worse than death) no matter what for rapists, kidnappers, and murderers as long as the system is open to looking at new evidence and reconsidering if it casts grave doubt on the conviction.

As to abortion, I'm a little sorry I brought it up. Its a no win situation however you look at it. I dont like the idea of abortion. I also dont like the idea of government control of any individual's body. (I'm not liberal/conservative, but libertarian.) I guess I have to come down on the side of any human being having complete autonomy over their own body. A fetus is part of her mothers body and so she should have ultimate say. I should hope no woman chooses this path, but if she does then she probably couldnt properly care for the child anyways and thus upping the ironic chance the child would be later executed by those who insisted he be born. I could as easily argue for the civil rights of the child to exist since he didnt ask to be conceived but was. As I said nobody wins. Guess my final answer is to strongly discourage abortion, but dont prosecute any woman who decides to go this route. (Even in nature if the mother animal is not equipped to handle offspring, she abandons or kills, or eats her young.) I do wonder about any doctor who would take money for performing an abortion unless it was a definite choice of the fetus's life or the mothers life. Yuck!

I also forgot the third governmental decision of life and death. Namely euthenasia. This is absolutely the individuals decision. No babies involved. No crimes against society. The individual should always have the absolute right to end his own life as long as he physically injures nobody else in the process. Whether I like it or you like it, or the church leaders like it, it is an entities freewill right to choose to cease existance, then it is between him and his maker. Of course the government could execute the person for attempted murder of himself. ;-I Dont laugh, it might happen in TX.

And there is even a forth governmental life and death decision. Namely the military draft. Nobody has the right to order another to harm a third party. The draft is simply a political expediency. If the cause is just and the government worth defending, it should have no shortage of volunteers. If not then either the government or the action it is pursuing is obviously not worth defending and should fail. Or perhaps the society has become so soft and weak, it no longer deserves to be independent.

-- Hermit John (ozarkhermit@pleasedontspamme.com), July 31, 2000.

Hello, An interesting footnote in my Bible mentions the fact that "as yet there ws no law given to order man's behavior.Therefore Cain's crime could not be punished by governmental means but only by it's natural consequences.". After the Deluge,God,during His blessing,stated three things-all of which were reaffirmed in the new testament: 1.allowance of eating meat(1Tim.4:3,4) 2.abstinance from blood(Acts 15:19,20) 3.the authority of the gov't in using the sword: The passage in Gen.:Whoso sheddeth man's blood,by man shall his blood be shed,for in the image of God made he man. Paul before Festus(Acts 25:11)For if I be an offender,or have committed anything worthy of death,I refuse not to die... Romans 13:4-For he is a minister of God to thee for good but if thou do that which is evil,be afraid,for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God,a revenger,to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Good points Little Bit and Wendy on the woman taken in adultery.

I do belive ther is room for mercy,however.I think of David when he committed those terrible sins against Bathsheba and Uriah.He truly repented(Psalm 51);his heart was broken over his sin.The Lord "pardoned" him.Yes, he still had the natural consequences of his sins to live through(the death of his precious baby for one),but he was judicially spared. Speaking of precious babies by the way,in this world that has decreed psuedoscientifically that man is no more than an accidental animal- merely a bunch of cheap and common chemicals "living"(reacting?) in a universe headed toward an ultimate heat death,in this world that has declared with Nietzche's Zarathustra "that God is dead",I do not wonder that there have been millions upon millions of precious little people murdered-offered up on the altar of self.Any honest biologist can tell you when life begins.The problem lies in the fact that life has no meaning to us as a society.If we be no more than an intelligent ape,if we be no more than a hyena or a rat,then there is no moral law.Hence murdered innocents and innocent murderers. Woe unto them that call good evil and evil good! Perhaps I am ranting-back to the subject: Tracy,I've never heard of David Milgaard,but that surely is a tragic case you related.It was to prevent that sort of thing that God said that every matter would be established not by one but 2 or 3 witnesses.I figure that's also the principle behind our "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think that the modern proverb holds true:Hard cses make for bad laws. Lesley,praise God for the changes you saw in those prisoners!Still for our sake as a nation the death penalty needs to be enforced properly. About G. Bush,he has my vote.That man has the courage to do what is right.I'm not surprised to hear that he has been shaken after an execution though.How terribly hard it must be to have someone's life in your hands-to know you are sending them into eternity,to pray they repent,to know not everyone will bow the knee to the Lord. I figure our veterans know the terrible weight of that burden.

One last thing,I wish the death penalty was used more,particularly for those who deviously,wickedly,and repeatedly violate children! I wish to relate a story that unfortunately is becoming more and more common with the only exception being the children are often never found alive:There was a young man in a county not too far from mine who was convicted of terribly violating little girls.He received the judicial equivalant of a wrist slap and later moved out of town. About 1 year ago or so,a little girl,almost 4,was left alone in her backyard for about 10 minutes.When her mama came out,she was gone! They searched relentlessly to no avail.Where had she gone?People every where were praying that this one little girl would be found alive.(We prayed ceaselessly to that end also.)The authorities were losing hope.Search and rescue dogs wandered around seemingly dumbfounded.Four long days and sleepless nights went by finally the break that they had been waiting for-they stormed the house across the alleyway.There they found her boarded up in the attic,bound and gagged with duct tape,left to die.Praise God she was alive!She was dehydrated and suffering from overexposure,but she was alive! My point in relating this true story is that if justice had been done to begin with up in the other county,he wouldn't have been alive to harm this precious little girl.Remember Jesus words about those who would harm a child that it would be better for them if a millstone were hung about their neck and they be drowned in the depths of the sea... [Yes, Jesus died for this man too.I pray he truly repents,but he should not be alive today!] God bless! ~Tracy~ [slightly off topic p.s.-Chance If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear

State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites Go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker. ~Steve Turner

-- Tracy Jo Neff (tntneff@ifriendly.com), July 31, 2000.

Off the subject, sorta....but on the subject of prisons:

I did a reasearch paper on the demise of the prison farm. And discovered that, my own state notwithstanding, there are a lot of states that are bringing back prison farms - using the inmates as labor to produce their own foods. I think that all prisons should be run as self supporting communities - and I'm including the infrastructure in the definition of self supporting! At the very least, they should provide their own food and clothing. What I found that saddened me, was that in many cases, government legislation and good ole boy politicking was the reason prison farms and other industries within prison walls fell out of favor. By paying the minimal wages to prisoners for their work, the prisons were able to undercut prices of industries on the outside of the prison walls. So then, legislation was set so that prisons could only sell to other prisons and other governm ententities (your state legislators desk may have been made in a prison!). Business owners then set up a howl because they were losing the government contracts to supply the prisons.

I think that prisons should be operated as self sustaining organizations, with the proceeds of excess production to be used to purchase those items that cannot be created "on farm" - heat/elec, etc. I don't think that they should be single product factories, but blended. I think that excess foodstuffs produced should be used in schools, nursing homes, orphanages (we still have 'em - just in most cases, the kids aren't really orphans), and food banks - to help ease the tax load on the rest of us. I think all prisoners should have at least 2 hours each day of remedial to vocational training - so that maybe they could do something other than crime when they got out. I also have a few more - more controversial ideas - but this is enough for now.

What do you all think?

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), July 31, 2000.

Polly, I agree, and would like to hear your more controversial ideas, too! I would add that the prisons should not be turned into prison factories, operating for a profit, like the ones in China, because then they would be competing with legitimate businesses, and that wouldn't be right, either. But they definitely should be supporting themselves -- why should criminals get free housing, food, and clothing at the expense of the people they've harmed? That makes no sense at all -- and one reason a lot of them are in there is because they've never had the discipline of hard work to provide for themselves. My suggestion would be that each individual ought to have his own garden, and his own hens, rabbits, or whatever, and if he/she doesn't take care of them and produce, he doesn't eat! Of course, if someone was incarcerated in the winter, he'd have to be fed until he could produce his own food, but no longer than that. Otherwise, some people would sluff off all the work onto others, just as they try to do on the outside. Then in winter, they would need to have some added work to keep their hands busy -- perhaps making all their own clothing. I'm sure we could all think of a lot of good ideas -- and a side benefit would be, that instead of the prisons training new criminals, they would be training new homesteaders!! :-)

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), July 31, 2000.

The prison system in Texas was pretty much self supporting with their own farms and dairy cows then back in the '70s a group of liberals sued the state and said it was unconstitutional to make prisoners work like that. That is how we ended up with the mess we have now.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), July 31, 2000.

Hermit John, In regards to your first point concerning the gov't being as perfect and all knowing as God, it never will be. He knew this and yet still gave us the means by which to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. For me, it comes down to when "man" decides his way is better and more merciful than the way God has given us, it will never succeed. As our current justice system indicates. You have child killers, rapists, murderers let loose to go back out into society to plunder and murder. It will be this way, as there are always the bleeding heart do-gooders who decide they have the authority to be merciful and release said rapists and murderers. If the guilty were executed, we would not have this problem and society would be better served. Also, if I am not mistaken, government per se does not make the decision to put to death the guilty. I served on a murder trial, and we the jurors made the decision of the accused guilt or innocence. It was a horrible task and I prayed mightly for wisdom, but I was committed to seeing justice served. The day our elected officials are given the right to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, (where politics play a part), and the citizens are no longer the "jury", then yes, I too would not support the death penalty. As to the government controlling an individual's body - I, too would never support such a concept. It currently does not control an individual's body. We each have absolute control of our own bodies, we make the choices that lead to pregnancy. When the gov't reaches the point that it would "force" a man & woman to engage in intercourse, thus creating life, then your position would hold water. (I already addressed cases of rape in an above post). Until that time, individuals retain control over their own actions and the consequences thereof. As to those willing to choose abortion being unfit and raising children to be future criminals, I would suggest that is a bit of a stretch. Many, many in our society today have so accepted the concept of abortion being a perfectly viable option, they have never truly considered the horrendous action being committed, after all it IS legal. They are taught in our gov't schools that this is a perfectly viable option, why should they know the truth? And particularly if we change the wording from baby to fetus, it is much easier to succomb to the deception being perpetrated. If adoption was a noble and highly regarded option, and abortion brough shame and guilt, there would be far, far fewer abortions. There would also be far, far fewer "unwanted" pregnancys. And yes, you are right, this in a no win situation, because we who believe babies in the womb are as valuable to God as those 2 seconds out of the womb, can never, ever comopromise on this issue. As to comparing animal mothers who abandon or abort their offspring, I do not think this is an accurate comparison, as animals were neither created in God's image, nor do they have a soul or a conscience. To your third point on euthenasia, I do not have the strength or will to open up this debate with you right now, he-he, maybe another time? Suffice it to say I am against the gov't supporting and upholding this as worthy or right. What one does to oneself, without regard to the legality is of course their choice. Point number four, I would mostly have to agree with. (gasp!) LOL. A people who would not willingly fight to protect and keep their freedom, country, etc... probably do deserve to loose their independence! Great thoughts coming on all sides of this issue, but wow am I impressed with those in favor of the death penalty, good substantial basis for your beliefs!! Then again, maybe I am biased?! he-he! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), July 31, 2000.

The worst enemy of folks who are incarcerated are the liberals...I have stated loud and long for years (and 100% of the inmates agreed with me)..inmates should get up at 5A.M.,spend half the day in gardening/husbandry and the other half learning a trade..Non-violent offenders should not be eligible for release until they have a trade.Violent offenders should be given longggggggggggggg sentences, if not life sentences, and their time should be spent working,making produce/products for those less fortunate in society...People needing food should be able to go to their local jail/prison and obtain all they need until they are on their own two feet again.The prison where I worked had no TV, no radio, no personal belongings such as CD players,etc...these men sat around day after day and did absolutely nothing...once a week they could go to the gym and play basketball...that was IT....Good and bad..I do not believe that inmates need TV or CD players or a good movie....I DO believe that to serve 5 years like this and then walk out the door a "free" man produces career criminals...the majority of inmates will gladly work and work very hard..My understanding is that there are two prisons in Texas run by a Chritian organization which are modeled on this philosophy and they are doing quite well...God Bless

-- Lesley (martchas@gatway.net), July 31, 2000.

I do not believe that prisons are fun, but three square meals a day and a roof over your head with access to libraries and tv's as many prisons have is just not a very threatening life sentence to many people with the willingness to be criminals of the worst type.

I do believe that prisons should be self-reliant in food and produce some goods for public use, but I don't agree with things like clothing companies that use prison labor or manufacturing from private for profit firms of any sort. Especially with the "war on drugs" and the highest number of non violent offenders incarcerated in the world in this country. I think using prison labor for profit or for social welfare programs is too close to Nazi Germany.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), July 31, 2000.

Just a few quick notes on babies. They are NOT part of their mothers body.They have their own separate blood supply-any rh neg. mom could tell you that. Their tiny little heart begins beating at around 21 days. They have recorable brainwaves at 40 days post conception. They move around so much earlier than their momma's can feel them. Tiny little hands merely weeks old that can grasp.Also,any Momma can tell you that each of her little ones had a distinctive personality in the womb.The baby even lets the momma's uterus know when it's time to be born.Blob of tissue?Hardly!So far as I know, the youngest surviving baby was a beautiful,tiny little girl born when she was only 4 1/2 months post conception.She is perfectly healthy.Sorry,I said this would be quick! It's just so frustrating to think a little life could be dismissed so easily.Give them to me or myriad others if you cannot keep them! We would love them!BTW,it's not only for the babies that my heart breaks.It's the mothers who have chosen to abort their little ones. What a silent and terrible pain many of them endure. We are created in the image of God-we did not evolve.We are not animals.The Lord loves each one of us SO much he gave Himself to die for us the worst possible death imaginable.He has paid in full for our sins.So much does he love us.So much does he love those little ones yet in the "safety"of their mommas' wombs-read ps.139 for starters. BTW,if we are no more than animals then what basis have we to judge anything?Why animals are known to force themselves on other animals. Animals mate with their kin.Animals kill and are killed daily. Ah,the circle of life...what makes us think we are any better? I'll tell you what:WE ARE created in the image of God and as such even the most relativistic of us know there is a right and there is a wrong because the law is written in our hearts. I sure do appreciate all you on the forum,and I pray that my comments would be taken well. As a side note,I write this as a former nihilistic atheist.Don't know whether y'all like me now,but I do know many of you would've come near to hating me in the past.You could not have met a more LIBERAL person!That is not an understatement! God Bless and goodnight, ~Tracy~

-- Tracy Jo Neff (tntneff@ifriendly.com), July 31, 2000.

Joel, Your postings always elicit interesting responses. These may be the best since I've been lurking around here. Must agree with Wendy, Tracy, Et Al in this matter. Theirs are some of the best editorials I've read in a long time. Their well written, knowedlegable arguments present a fact based Biblical logic I wish I had written. I certainly can't add anything other than praise for ALL the participants in this discussion. The web is so full of screamers and vile people whose idea of discourse is foul language, it's so nice to HANG here (just a little death penalty humor) with you all. Thanks for being civil to one another.

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), July 31, 2000.

I'm sorry, but humans are a lot more a part of nature than many care to believe. We have close to 99% of our DNA in common with a chimpanzee and 41% in common with a tree. Yes a tree. All Gods handiwork after all. If He chose to make us that simular, it must of been for a reason, huh? I for sure can see simularities in human and animal behavior. It doesnt surprise me that a woman could revert to stress behavior seen in other mammals. I highly suspect a lot of so called human superiority is wishful thinking. Humans are good at that.

I'm not one to get into a Bible discussion but your ideas seem to be more 'the eye for an eye' of Jewish law than of the new testament. Where in the new testament did God demand the death penalty be imposed by man. I dont remember Jesus ever saying so and so should be righteously killed. To kill a prisioner because you want to force him to grasp at religion in his fear of death or because you are afraid some later government will free him doesnt seem very Christ like. More like some heathen holy war. Society has the right to protect itself, but hopefully in a more benevolent and just manner than what the criminal used against his victim. Life in prision without parole seems adequate. He for sure is kept from society and has further time to make what he can of his life under severe restrictions or to show his innocense if that is the case. This "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentallity doesnt cut it. As to euthenasia and suicide, I wont get into a long discussion either, except that this is a private act and if it physically harms no other than the individual, it is none of the buisiness of the government. I will even say in broad general terms that as long as an individual physically harms no other, then he should exercise his God given free will in all areas without retribution or infringement. If that sends him to hell in a handcart, then so be it. At least it was his free choice.

Are you sure we agree on point four? I say it should absolutely be an individuals decision to fight or not fight for his country or cause or whatever, without being put in jail or punished in anyway. We were given free will and a conscience. Only a fool follows a fellow human blindly without thinking for himself. Real patriotism is to freely fight for a common cause you have thought through and have heartfelt belief in. It is not to salute some symbolic icon and blindly follow some leader who may or may not have your best interests at heart just because he tells you to. That really is animal behavior. Just think of two packs of dogs interacting. ;-)

-- Hermit John (ozarkhermit@pleasedontspamme.com), August 01, 2000.

So God created man in his OWN image,in the image of God And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the feild, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Both man and every living creature were formed from the dust of the ground. But only man received the "breath of life" and became a living soul. Man was indeed made in the very image of God. Only man, not another living creature formed has been made in the image of God or given a living soul. I do believe in human superiority for that very reason. Mine is a biblical worldview, I believe the bible to be the infallible word of God. Therefore I draw from that foundation when viewing any issue, all is sifted and sorted to submit to and line up with the word of God. I understand your worldview is different, you draw your conclusions from a different foundation, it stands to reason we would not agree in the end. This is said not in a snide way, but only to let you know I am not trying to beat you over the head to accept my position, only to understand where I form my basis for such statements as - I believe in human superiority. It is not from some puffed up sense of arrogance, but because I have chosen to believe his word. You may disagree but must surely understand how and why how I would reach that conclusion. As to your other points on the death penalty, I can only say I have laid out my position and how I came to that conclusion, in the above threads. I would add I do not want to kill a prisoner because I want to force him to grasp at religion. I want justice served, the innocent protected. And a clear and consistent message sent to those with evil in their heart, that if caught and found guilty, death will be swift and sure. Because a message is sent, one way or another. It is the same principle involved in areas that have restricted guns in one way or another. Criminals prey more boldly and without fear of harm, as they know their victims are highly unlikely to be armed. A message has been sent. The innocent are vunerable, the evil-doers have free reign. In areas that are known to be armed, crime rates drop. Criminals know and do care about these things. The message is very important. And yes, I am afraid that those in charge will release murderers and child rapists, etc.. It happens all the time. Most horrific crimes are committed by repeat offenders. And it is not some future gov't body I fear of this type of leniency, but what we currently have in place. What we have now is neither what I speak of or what you speak of, ie- swift and sure death if found guilty or life time, no chance of release, imprisonment. In regards to the "forcing a prisoner to accept religion" due to his fear of death. As I said, I do not want to force anyone, but I do want to offer eternal life through Jesus Christ, and yes fear of death and the realization of our Creator does have a way of bringing men to repentence. The FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Jesus did speak to the Law, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill". "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". We are indeed no longer under the law as Christ died for our sins, and by grace we are saved. Yet, his principles for righteous living and how to conduct ourselves and maintain a society fit to live in, remain. It is his will that all come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. If we break down to a society of murderers, rapists, etc.. truth, justice, wisdom, goodness, forgiveness, and ultimatly, the saving grace of Jesus Christ is lost, to a perverse and ungodly people, with no truth or knowledge in them. I am for the death penalty for a myriad of reasons, not simply to seek revenge. It is not my place as a follower of Christ to seek vengence, that is his to do. But I do seek to preserve a world where goodness, peace, truth, wisdom, and justice prevail. Even knowing sin will always be with us, and man will always seek to do harm, that is the Lord's to work out in the end. You are correct when you ask me if I am sure of my agreement with you regarding the draft. I must confess to not having formulated my postition clearly on this. I am in agreement with your statement about a people unwilling to fight to preserve their way of life, their freedoms, and their principles. If we are unwilling to do this, we indeed deserve to loose those things we hold dear. As to the draft itself, I will refrain from commenting on until I have applied myself to further understand the issue and the implications involved. Gee thanks, now I have something else to consider, my husband will be thrilled to hear that, he-he, as his eyes glaze over as they are so prone to do.LOL! God Bless and Keep You! Wendy P.S- I like your humor John in S.IN. It gave me a good chuckle!! Also, Tracy Jo Neff, Bless You for your post and Jesus did indeed come to save us poor sinners, Praise God for his mercy! I too, come from a very feminist, liberal background that God was not a part of. Wish I spoke from some high and lofty moral background, but alas, I was a wretched sinner with no knowledge of God or his plan for salvation, but praise God at 26 I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and have never looked back! Still struggle of course and fail often, but am committed to the course and serving Him! God Bless YOU! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 01, 2000.

We have had executions since GW announced his candidacy. The governor of Texas, by law, has no say on stay of executions, unless the Board of Pardons recommends it.

To all of those folks out there who have sympathy for the poor misguided souls we choose to execute...would you be willing to let these animals live in your house, with your wife, children, and property.

Texas executed a poor misunderstood soul, just a few weeks ago. The big media clamor was he was convicted on one eyewitness's testimony. They failed to mention the crime spree he went on before being caught for murdering a clerk. I saw one small newsclip of the other victims that he'd shot and maimed that day. The executed man was unrepentant till the end, saying he was innocent. He wasn't, unfortunately the person he executed couldn't identify him. And the other victims that day didn't get to testify. BUT, they did identify him, after the big liberal media swell tried to portray the animal as some sort of saint, who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The animals victims didn't have appeals, they were attacked, and one murdered.

My taxes are too high now. Incarcerating for life is no life. This is an emotional issue, and everybody's got an opinion.

-- phil briggs (phillipbriggs@thenett.com), August 01, 2000.

Sorry about the beginning of the above post, somehow I intermixed and jiggled everything around. It should read - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion...... So God created man in his OWN image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the feild, and every fowl of the air.... Sorry about that, I think there is a gremlin in my PC?!?! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 01, 2000.

Hello again everyone! I have'nt got much time to answer as my son is napping and my daughter wants me to play.However,I just wanted to add a few more thoughts. 1.The eye for eye passage was much more merciful that we today often hear it interpreted.It was for the gov't,and was intended to prevent individual,vengeful retaliation.(We,ve all heard the old saying that "In some counries they'd chop your hand off for that!".) 2.I also see many people who live as animals or worse.That is the direct fruit of the Godless philosophies of our day.Again I say, if there is no God,if we are no more than animals,then WHO are we to judge another and by what law do we judge?We are reduced to "the law of the jungle" in essence.(Of course,if that be true,then life has NO meaning and I have essentially said NOTHING.) 3.You point out the similarities and aptly attribute it to having one creator.Yes, our bodies were all formed from the dust of the earth by an allwise and loving creator.But, as Wendy said,only man was created in the image of God.We are much better than animals.(To clear up any misunderstandings before they start:this doesn't mean we are to pillage and plunder the world and its creatures.We are to be wise stewards and caring masters.)Where was I?Yes, there are similarities,but the differences are infinite! 4.Lastly(for now anyways),I understand all too well the hopeless behaviour that we turn to when without an Answer.No,I've never aborted a little one.There was a time I wouldn't have given it a second thought though.I,however,nearly "aborted" myself at age 20. You see,I'd been an atheist for quite a long time at that point having rejected faith in God as a CHILD who collected fossils and loved to read.I lived and thought my philosophy thru to it's logical conclusion:There is no hope.There is nothing after death. Life is painful.Why Live?The very meaninglessness of it all overwhelmed me.Out of sheer,torturesome boredom one day,I picked up an old children's story bible and proceeded to read.The stories were so thrilling!If only this were true,thought I,then there would be hope.And so God led me bit by bit to see the amazing truth of his word.He "showed"to me thru varied ways the truth of his existence. He answered my deepest doubts.It seemed nearly every time I had a question,there was my answer!He saved my soul-if only I could truly put into words all that He did for me!I'm ever so thankful to Him and ministeries out there like ICR(check it out!www.icr.org). I pray that any women facing an unwanted pregnancy would find the hope,peace and courage to go on that Jesus alone gives.Killing the child is not the answer. Wendy,thanks for your kind words.John also.That was rather funny btw. Ive always enjoyed a good pun. Hermit John,God bless you sir.No hard feelings-this was not personal. I pray you'll put your trust in Christ sir if you haven't already.He alone is worthy and in Him there is forgiveness,peace and Life eternal and full of glory! God bless you all !I love this forum and all on it! ~~~Tracy~~~ Not intending to twist arms here...thank God we aren't mere robots!

PS-I wanted to share this verse,but forgot to put it in somewhere: That at the time ye were w/out Christ,...having no hope,and w/out God in this world:But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.For He is our peace...Eph.2:12-14 I always think about this verse when reflecting upon my life then and now.

-- Tracy Jo Neff (tntneff@ifriendly.com), August 01, 2000.

oops!forgot to mention that I was intending on committing suicide at that point(see #4).I'm sure y'all probably inferred that though. My little buddy is up,gotta go tracy

-- Tracy Jo Neff (tntneff@ifriendly.com), August 01, 2000.

I have to say that when I first subscribe to Countryside, it was purely for the Y2K year of issues. Never in my life did I hope to find such a deep well of intellectually stimulating conversations and questions. That first subscription was the best $ I've spent in a long time. As to the subject at hand, I'm in a quandry on these issues myself. I favor the idea of using DNA to eliminate suspects (or confirm them) in any trial, not just death penalty. You can often spend a lifetime in prison for crimes where DNA evidence is just as useful, but for which the death penalty is not an issue. As to abortion, well it's difficult for me to judge what anybody should do with their lives, let alone their bodies. Perhaps Christian Right Groups should fund research into the designing of artificial wombs (prototypes do exist in the cloning field) so that mothers who do not wish to keep their fetuses can be live-aborted and the fetus raised in the artificial womb to be adopted pre- or post- birth by those who would love to have the child. At some distant (or not so) time in the future, I can forsee science's ability to actually implant the womb into the body of a woman whose own is gone or not functional. For that matter, given the advances in Caesarian sections, put it into the body of a hormonally ammended man who either fathered the unwanted baby, but insists that the mother not be allowed to abort (that ought to end that discussion really quickly) or into any man who want to do it. Okay, so it's a bit creepy, but no more so than any other organ transplant or trans-gender surgery. What most people seem to not realize is that an unwanted child in the life of someone who is not responsible enough to use contraception, or who is impregnated against their will, is often as life-ending (for all intents and purposes) as an abortion is to the fetus. A 15 year old mother in a poverty stricken area will not usually be able to get an education or enough public assistance to make a real difference in her life, and often the father's not interested in any more than he already got from her (hence my earlier suggestion of womb implantation). I've lived in these areas and I know that social services there are an overworked, understaffed joke and that most likely the prediction of raising someone who will later be executed, or at least incarcerated, is truer than most people not in this position know. As far as prisons not being a deterent - right on. I happen to know people personally who have assaulted officers simply for a month of food and shelter in the winter. 3 squares and a bed, not to mention any other perks, is often a major improvement in the lives of a lot of criminals, plus the threat of imminent and ugly death is less in prison than it is on the street, so what's to deter? In my opinion, it would be cheaper, although it would require a lot of time and short-term resources, to invest in heavy duty, full-on focused counselling, job training, education, rehabilitation, etc at the first offence than to do a haphazard job and act suprised when the same people end up on the tax-payers tab time after time. If you can get to the root of the problem the first time, whether that is family abuse, poverty, low self esteem, to much self esteem (entitlement) or what ever the cause of the first crime, and fix that by using a year's supply of incarceration $ on preventative and fixative measures, than I believe you would save many year's supply of said cash in future non-returns. Nuff said.

-- Soni Pitts (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 01, 2000.

I am overwhelmed ! For the person who said it was their first post--WELCOME--and I have no group. Everyone is welcome to agree or disagree with me. I believe that Jesus said he fulfilled the scripture so in essence he made the Old Testement only a history book. I'm not going to change anyones's mind and have no intention of trying. Lesley and I have a unique perspective on prison life that many here have not had the distinct priveledge of enjoying--we have been inside ! Not as prisoners but as employees or volunteers. I am not for letting murderers free unless to banish them as God did Cain. I think we have some remote places left to do that in such as the Bronx in NYC. The news of Texas executions has not reached us here in Virginia since Bush decided to run. I can see now that the media is helping him. Before he announced his intent we read of every one of them on the front page. I quess I only have several questions left. Is Pontous Pilate in heaven ? Did the symbolic washing of hands save him ? Does the phrase "I was falling the law the land" save you from damnation ? if so than why didn't it work for Herman Guering and Adolf Eichman ? I don't think your flag decal will get you into heaven anymore, it's already overcrowded from our little asian war !

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), August 01, 2000.

Sorry--the quote should read " I was following the law of the land"

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), August 01, 2000.

I am glad we all can have a political debate without taking things too personally. Especially Wendy. I can appreciate and respect a fundamentalist perspective although I dont necessarily agree with it. You would also see me strongly objecting to liberal "big government". I'm for minimal government and maximum individual civil rights.

My biggest opposition to the death penalty is that I just dont trust any government/burocracy to make these final death decisions. Be nice if every criminal came with a flashing lights saying "absolutely guilty of breaking fair and just laws beyond any doubt" that lit up at trial. It doesnt. I can just imagine (or probably not since I've never even been arrested) what it would be like to be falsely accused and convicted and sentenced to death. And if you dont have the money, celebrity, and luck of OJ it just might happen. I would want as much time as I could get to show the verdict was wrong. I would also want a prosecutor and judiciary system interested in true justice and open to admitting their mistakes; not one that looks the other way so they can brag how many people they have got a conviction on.

If I would want these things, then I support these things for everybody. Even the meanest, nastiest criminal you can imagine. Thats whole idea of the constitution and individual rights, to insure that whatever flavor of government is in power, it wont run rough shod over the innocent. Its easy to say lets string up the "beast" quickly so as to be rid of him, but if the wrong politician comes to power, then that "beast" just might be one of us, say for not properly registering our guns or objecting to some politicians pet war? Still want to string every accused criminal up quickly since 'he obviously should have no rights'.

-- Hermit John (ozarkhermit@pleasedontspamme.com), August 02, 2000.

I don't have much time so I will just address what I can quickly!

Joel, unless Pontius Pilate accepted Jesus Christ he is not in heaven. The washing of his hands did nothing to clear him of his sin in following a wrong majority. If you think of many folks who have killed they exhibit the obsessive compulsive hand washing and it doesn't change what they did. Also, God's law superceds all "law of the land" arguements. Just because something is legal does not make it right or righteous.

Hermit John, no one here is willing to just string everyone up if they don't agree with them. I understand your lack of trust in the judicial system. It has merit. However, we can be sure that when someone is an unrepentant admitted murderer, there is no doubt as to their guilt. I can't back down from the fact that when someone knows their execution is coming they have much time to ponder the question of where they want to spend eternity. That is certainly a great impetus for self- evaluation. If people would do that on a daily basis, we wouldn't have the kinds of violence that we now have.

Thanks for posing another great question, Joel!

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), August 02, 2000.

Hermit John, I am still laughing. I love the idea of criminals wearing a big flashing sign.... I love it!! he-he!! Thanks for the above, I really have enjoyed reading everyones thoughts on this and love the process of debating ideas!I believe this is what keeps us all on our toes, sometimes forcing us to come to a conclusion on what we do believe....like now I have to about the draft!.....Anyway, Joel you do have a way about you.. always interesting thoughts! Take Care. Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

I think that we the people shouldn't have to decide if a convicted murderer should live or die. Once they have been convicted and all appeals are exhausted, I think we should put them in a prison that is totally secured and that has no inside jail cells and no guards. In other words, everyone inside the prison is a convicted murderer. The way I see it, they made a choice not to live by the laws of the land so why not put them in a place where they can make all of the laws they want to. We could helicopter in food and medical supplies as they need them but let the inmates be totally responsible for how their life is run while they are in prison, including whether or not they eat, sleep, lift weights, beat each other to a pulp or even if they will survive. Let them live in a lawless community to see how much they like it. They chose the path of lawlessness so let them live it. If they kill each other, too bad. They didn't show any mercy to the person they killed. We would not be risking any responsible citizen's life, i.e. guards, because there wouldn't be any. If there sentence is for ten years, and they survive, then we could have them go through secured exit gates which are electronically controlled so no one is at risk, until they finally make it out back into normal society. I bet most of them would not be repeat offenders if they thought that was where they would have to go back to.

Maybe this is harsh but so is murder, on the victim.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 02, 2000.

Colleen , i laughing as I even think of your post .The only thing I can come up with lifes a bitch ! I think the victims family should decide on the punishment .I know if I were on a jury for a murderer that was murdered by the victims family they would be set free .Heres wishing everyone happy thoughts .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), August 02, 2000.

Okay, I have another perspective on the abortion issue that is different than most people mention when they discuss the topic. To me a person is not a person until the soul enters their body. Just like when they die of old age, when the soul leaves, the body is just an empty shell. Most Christians believe that when you talk about death of an old or sick person but when you talk about when life begins, suddenly the aspect of the soul is nowhere to be found. I don't understand this. They keep talking about "biolgogical life". Who cares about the biological shell our souls are encased in. They are inconsequential if you believe in the existence of a soul and the hereafter.

I believe until that child is born and the soul enters the body, it is not a human being in the spiritual sense. It is some tissue that is just ashes and dust, to turn a phrase. And I believe it belongs to the mother and it is up to her to decide what to do with it. I don't believe the soul enters the baby before it is born because I don't believe that two souls inhabit the same body which is what would happen to the mother if the soul entered the body of the child before birth.

I often wonder why no one talks about the soul on the abortion issue even though they preach a Christian faith and agree that the soul leaves upon death and the body becomes inconsequential. Go figure.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 02, 2000.

Colleen, points well taken, however, I think that some folks must believe that the soul enters the fetus' body at conception which would mean two souls in the mother's body and that the mother is simply a vessel to carry the baby until birth, the baby being a separate entity and the mother not having dominion over it and therefore has no right to make choices about this separate entity. Maybe once we cross over to whatever is after this life we will have a clearer understanding. However, there are many out there that already feel they have the answers according to which ever book they ascribe to.

Blessings

-- Judy Murray (jmurray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu), August 02, 2000.

Collen;

I think most people discuss biological life because that is what most pro abortion folks understand. As to two souls inhabiting one body, I don't see your point, if the baby has their own soul in their body how is that inhabiting the mother? True, the mother carries the child but it is a seperate person unto themselves. In Mark chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to his desciples while surrounded by children, and taking one on his lap stated "And whosoever shall offend on of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." That to me is a strong statement on treatment of children. As to when the soul inhabits the body, I truly believe that it occurs when life begins, at conception. Just something to think about. I for one can not accept the concept that abortion is nothing less than killing a child and that we as a people will have to answer for this abomination that we are allowing to happen everyday. Regardless of anyone's beliefs on the abortion issue a life is terminated when this happens.

As to the death penalty, I'm still undecided on this. I have prayed and studied on this and still I'm not sure. I still cringe at the thought of an innocent person losing their life for a crime they did not commit but I also realize that there are people out there who have lost their humanity and have turned into ruthless animals and should be destoyed for the safety of us all. So keep talking folks I'm listening.

Jim Tanner

-- Jim Tanner (tanner_jim@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

I'm still somewhat confused also, Jim. Colleen, that is the other topic I can't disguss. I'm so torn on abortion I may go to my grave questioning myself. So, no comment is the better part of valor.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), August 02, 2000.

Colleen, I am curious; you stated "before a child is born and the soul enters the body, it is not a human being in the spritual sense." Is it a human being in the physical sense? Wendy

-- Wendy Larson (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

For those of you who do believe the Bible, if you look at Luke 1:15, it says the John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And in Luke 1:41, when Mary arrived to visit Elisabeth, John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb at the presence of his Lord, who was only just conceived in Mary's womb (John was at about six months gestation). I think these verses are compelling evidence that unborn children do have a soul, and are a person independent from their mother.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 02, 2000.

Thank you Kathleen! I had read that passage but had forgotten about it. Thank you. Now I can point to that when expressing my viewpoint. You're so right.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), August 03, 2000.

Wendy, that was my whole point. It is my belief that a human is not a human unless they have a soul. The soul is what makes them a human. And until the soul enters the baby's body upon delivery, it is not a human and therefore I am not killing a human.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), August 03, 2000.

Colleen, my response, to your hypothesis will come tomorrow, in detail. For now though, I am wondering what basis you have for the assumption that a person has no soul until birth? i would respond today, but tonight we are off to the fair. Now is not the time for such seriousness. It's time for fun! I hope all of you have some too.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), August 03, 2000.

Psalms 139...Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou has possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee... How wonderful is this whole chapter

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), August 03, 2000.

Colleen, I did actually understand that was your whole point, but my question remains...if it is not a human baby you are killing, what, exactly are you killing? If I infer from your first post that you beilieve you are only "killing" ashes & dust, I would be very confused, as I am pretty sure ashes & dust are not comprised of arms, legs, hearts & brains. Also, I do not think ashes or dust feel pain. If I am to infer you believe the baby to be simply an empty vessel, therefore not human, does that also mean that as you said, once one dies and their soul departs, they are no longer human? Do they become some different species? We would all agree that once buried the physical body does begin decomposing and breaking down, but this process begins once death has set in. The process of new life and birth does not bring on deterioation & decompsing that death does, indeed the process of life brings with it the flowing of blood, new tissue forming, etc... But none of this changes the question, either we are human beings before birth and even after death or we are or become some other species, which is it? If I could offer the following for you to consider, perhaps you might be interested? If you accept the Bible it tells us the following. God created man in his image, "And God said, Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness". So man he made in his image. To depart for a moment, to point out the pattern God set in his creation - Genesis 2:11-12- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. The pattern we see that God set forth in nature and reproduction is that the "seed" is built in and brings forth it's own kind. That is why a apple tree seed, when planted bears a new apple tree, not a peach tree. It is a species of it's own kind. Even before bearing fruit or after it dies, it remains a apple tree. Now, granted, what of course sets human beings apart from a fruit tree, is that we are made in God's image, but you see the priciples God has established, from the very beginning. Now to add to that basic principle, we also know that God has identified himself as being made up of 3 parts, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Man is made up of 3 parts - Body, soul and spirit. In the image of God. All human beings come (are born with) the first two, body and soul. The spirit comes when a person accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. We then receive the Holy Spirit and are sealed. Now I do realize your issue is with when we receive the soul. Back in Genesis, when God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life -man became a living soul. It was at that point built into "the seed" - the pattern having already been established that "seed" reproduces its own kind, with all the characteristics thereof. Therefore, if Adam had a soul, and he was the beginning of mankind, all those that follow had the same built in characteristics. Eyes, ears, nervous system, heart, etc... including a soul. And notice when God made Eve from one of Adams ribs, he did not breath the breath of life into her, she came equipped with it (thru Adam). Or you might conclude women are without souls (which I have heard some accuse us of, he-he!!). And of course there are plenty of compelling scripture to support the "humanity" of the unborn, that which has already been mentioned above and I would add just a couple more for your consideration. Job 31-15 - Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? Psalm 139:13-14 - "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb." "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well". It is clear God considers us worthy and of value, even in our mother's womb. Consider too that God patterned the universe after himself. Almost everything is made up of 3 parts. Body, soul, spirit. Past, present, future. Land, air & sea. Animal, vegetable & mineral. Music is made up of three parts: harmony, melody and rhythm. The list goes on & on. I bring this up, only to point out the pattern set before us, that we might better know and understand the nature of God. And understand the basis on which we have been fearfully and wonderfully made! Of course I know that there are many people who do not accept the Bible as the infallable word of God and this is just gibberish to them, and for that I am sorry. But to challenge your position on when a baby recieves a soul, without going to the source, would forme, be like going to a gunfight..... with a knife!! he-he! So as I said, I do not expect to sway anyone who does not accept the bible, and do not mean to sound like a "thumper" here, but it is my foundation and I look to it for answers. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

i am not a bible scholar but i see no difference between abortion and sacrificing by burning your children in a fire. maybe the difference is that those who burnt their children were at least giving it to a god (which is false cause their is only one God and he does not want us to sacrifice our children to him) i really think that abortion is in away a sacrifice to the american god of money and can't be bothered. i really belive this nation will have to pay for the practice of abortion. I am not sure of the numbers but we were horrified by the nazi mass murders in wwII and i think we have killed more human beings by abortion than they did. I wonder if bill was just the start of our punishment. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

Sigh....I have worked with many women who have had abortions..rarely do they give no serious thought to what they are doing..pro-life people (such as myself) like to think that this is a cut and dried issue where women who have abortions sort of gaily trip out of the clinics singing "tra la"...far from it..they agonize.Oh once in awhile I met a person who gave the impression that she could not care less, but mostly it was angst and confusion and often,depression.Why then so women continue to have abortions???Imho it is because society has given its' immoral stamp of approval upon the procedure and provided very little in the way of alternatives.I would be happy to adopt several babies rather than see them aborted,yet I would not be permitted to by government agencies.."too old,too poor"etc...If every family who was opposed to abortion pressured the government to allow adoptions of these infants without the YEARS of red tape,etc...I would like to believe that more women would opt for allowing their baby to be born.As a realist, I actually believe that as long as society approves of immoral behavior,sanctions the abandonment of personal responsibility,and encourages women to come to believe that an unborn child is a "thing"..it will continue.I have held little 12 and 14 weekers in my arms while they gasped their last breath.I have marveled at their form and beauty.I have comforted their bereaved parents...how anyone could not see that these babies have a soul is beyond my comprehension and I will pray for those folks...God bless.

-- Lesley (martchas@gateway.net), August 04, 2000.

Gail, you are probably right about Bill being just the start of our punishment. It is scary to think what may be coming next. I don't remember exact figures, but we have killed MANY TIMES more innocent unborn babies than people that were killed by the Nazis. If someone does have figures, it might be enlightening to see them. And yes, for the most part, the babies are sacrificed on the altar of money or self. When you consider how many people in this country want babies and can't have them, and can't find any to adopt, it makes most of the pro-abortion arguments look just as selfish as they really are. If anyone out there doesn't want their baby, I would be glad to take it and love it and raise it, and I've already raised three. My aunt and uncle, in their sixties, became foster parents for a little girl when she was only two. She's six now, and happy as a clam (silly saying, but you know what I mean!). I expect a lot of people would be willing to take some of those unwanted babies, if the mothers could be persuaded to give birth to them instead of killing them. Seems like we have more sympathy for unwanted or abused animals than for innocent unborn babies -- I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the animals God puts in our care, but they shouldn't come before people.

As far as the original topic of this thread, I have no problem with the death penalty. It would be good if they could use the DNA testing and make as certain as possible that they have the right person, but I really don't think that there are very many innocent people on death row. One once in a while, perhaps, but that is no justification for letting them all get away with it -- and that is what is basically happening when they get to stay alive, while the person or people they murdered is/are obviously DEAD. I see a lot of misplaced sympathy here. Why do the criminals get all the support and attention? What about the victims and their families and friends? The criminal made a choice, and he/she got caught, and now he/she OUGHT to be finding out that there are REAL SERIOUS consequences to his/her behaviour. This is one thing that is a consequence of currently fashionable shild-rearing practices (spanking isn't politically correct, etc.) -- children con't learn right from the time they are tiny that there are serious consequences when they do something wrong. And then there are those misguided and misbegotten parents who fail to teach their children that there IS a wrong and a right. It's no wonder this country is such a mess, with children killing other children.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 04, 2000.

In response to the question of two souls in one body not being "allowed", what happens in the case of Siamese twins? All the cases I'm familiar with, the individual twins each calim to have their own personality and thoughts, and killing one does not kill the other if they've been seperated, therefore they would have to have two souls in one body, at least until they were disconnected from each other, which is almost always post-partum, often by weeks or months. if they are born with one soul, where does the other "fill- in" soul come from? Fed-Ex? Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a belief fully formed either way (soul entry pre- or post- partum), but I can't let the one person, one soul proximity question slide by without proper consideration of this contradictory example. Just love to stir simmer pots, don't I? Well, you gotta, or they'll stick and become useless.

-- Soni Pitts (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

In response to the question of two souls in one body not being "allowed", what happens in the case of Siamese twins? All the cases I'm familiar with, the individual twins each calim to have their own personality and thoughts, and killing one does not kill the other if they've been seperated, therefore they would have to have two souls in one body, at least until they were disconnected from each other, which is almost always post-partum, often by weeks or months. if they are born with one soul, where does the other "fill- in" soul come from? Fed-Ex? Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a belief fully formed either way (soul entry pre- or post- partum), but I can't let the one person, one soul proximity question slide by without proper consideration of this contradictory example. Just love to stir simmering pots, don't I? Well, you gotta, or they'll stick and become useless.

-- Soni Pitts (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

Thank you, Lesley, for sharing your experiences. (You must have been writing at the same time as I was!) Yes, government red tape is a part of the problem -- being over forty now, it would be very unlikely that we would be allowed to adopt an infant, even if a mother specifically wanted us to have her baby. I mentioned my aunt and uncle in the above post -- in their sixties, uncle isn't in really great health, and they certainly aren't rich, but that little girl is blessed to have them for her foster parents. How many older folks are there who could probably be better parents to some of these unwanted babies than younger people could be! All that experience going to waste, especially now that most families live so far apart and grandparents can't even share much of their wisdom with their grandchildren.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), August 04, 2000.

For those who expressed a willingness to adopt unwanted children, here is a website: The Faces of Adoption, Children Waiting to be Adopted, at http://www.adopt.org/

They mostly are not babies, but they are children who were not aborted, not given up for adoption at birth, who now need loving homes. Most of them have problems -- my best "guess" is that they are damaged by having parents who should not have had children.

Without coming down on either side, I think they are living proof of the results of the wrong people having children. I am not able to take in any children -- I hope some of the rest of you ARE able!

-- J E Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), August 04, 2000.

I used to be 100% pro death penalty. I'm not 100% against it, but:

When you talk about the John Wayne Gacys and the Jeffrey Dahmers and the Ted Bundys of this world, it's easy to be pro death penalty. However, when you talk about the Ruben 'Hurricane' Carters, and the other prisoners released from prison after being found innocent, and seeing the recent mess with the Rampart division of the LA police wherein a whole lot of folks were let out of prison because of police brutality in extracting false confessions, you're talking a whole 'nother ball game.

There are people who talk about the issue in terms of the Bible. I'm afraid that anybody who uses the Bible to justify the death penalty is off base, because one of the 10 commandments is 'thou shalt not kill', kill meaning murder. I do think that takes precedence over anything else in the discussion, and it applies globally to governments and individuals alike (at least, I've never seen a caveat in any Bible versions I have say '...except the government').

I agree that there are people that need to be locked up. Permanently. And I agree that it is the role of the government to do that. However, I really hesitate to give the power to the government to kill, because even when I find the acts a person's committed vile, disgusting and abhorant, I don't think that the system's infailable, and I believe that perpetrators of such acts should live long, painful lives in prison, deprived of any amenities other than 'three hots and a cot'.

Right now, the death penalty's been applied disproportionaly to Blacks. If it were fair, I think that the percentage of people executed would be somewhat reflective of the society as a whole...however, the entire justice system's skewed toward being more punative towards Blacks...in Seattle alone, Blacks get more traffic tickets than whites, and they represent a much smaller percentage of the population as a whole; I can't believe that Blacks are so much worse drivers then the rest of the population.

Over 60% of the population in prison is there for non-violent drug related charges. Now, the other 30 - 40% is what concerns me. So what if somebody used a little weed? Why let out a violent criminal to reoffend when a drug-related charge lands somebody in prison for life? Somehow, the ease with which those we really need to lock up get back out on the streets makes me more uneasy than letting drug offenders go.

I worked with a man who was a pedophile, was let out after he'd done his term, and expressed no remorse at what he'd done, only that he'd been caught. Will he re-offend? Quite likely. Should he have been kept locked up? I think so.

I have a book on my shelf called Completely Pro-life, which challenges all who call themselves pro-life to consider the death penalty, nuclear weapons, abortion and life issues such as a working wage, guaranteed health care, etc. in the equation when they call themselves pro-life. Seems most 'pro-life' rhetoric covers abortion, but that's it; nobody cares after the kid's born that its parents can't make a living wage or afford health care, or that its government can kill billions with nuclear weapons, or that its government can kill innocent people with impunity, has and will continue to do so.

Of course, we'd also need to add that the government is based on corporate business interests but that's a whole 'nother ball game itself.

-- Karen Isaacson (karen@terraceweb.com), August 06, 2000.