The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Unregistered
I can appreciate that as an atheist you might not like people using the Bible to back up their argumnts but I think it's fair enough to use it. You asked what people thought of the death penalty- well whats the problem with referring to religious texts? If somebody's view is based around what they feel their particular religious tradition has to say on the issue why should they not be able to say so? My own view isnt informed by a theological standpoint but I feel its unfair that you don't recognise the contributions of those who do relate moral isues to their religious beliefs. After all, you never said at the start of the thread that you were only interested in hearing views which weren't based around religion.
I find some of the views posted by religious people on this thread not to my taste either but that really isnt the point. You are right in suggesting that some of them have quoted the Bible idly but that doesn't mean it isn't legitimate to quote it in a moral discussion at all.


Hence I said I objected to idle quotes - I am interested in a personal response even if it is strongly informed by religion. My further argument was that the sraight up 'we should do what God says in the bible' approach is, in my opinion, a few hundred years behind the times as it has ghastly tortures as routine punishments. I did not intend to suggest that personal contributions from those with any religious beliefs were un-welcome and apologise if it appeared so. My vocal responses have, I fear, been promted by the fact that I seem to have aquired a few 'unregistereds' from the God thread who have made me their personal crusade. I will take a breath before I respond to them in future. :smile:
Haz
My further argument was that the sraight up 'we should do what God says in the bible' approach is, in my opinion, a few hundred years behind the times as it has ghastly tortures as routine punishments. :smile:


This is irrelevant. The fact remains; the moral principles that the Bible teaches are very much applicable to todays dilemmas.
Reply 62
Unregistered
This is irrelevant. The fact remains; the moral principles that the Bible teaches are very much applicable to todays dilemmas.


It depends which bits of the bible you refer to - some of the principles are admirable (e.g. Matthew 6, sermon on the mount "forgive men their trespasses".) This, I agree with you, is very relevant to todays society. However, my post was in response to people here who seem to have taken their inspiration from the vengeful god of the old testament. I have noticed that most of people who have posted in favour of the death penalty have cited religion as the basis of their opinion.
Haz
It depends which bits of the bible you refer to - some of the principles are admirable (e.g. Matthew 6, sermon on the mount "forgive men their trespasses".) This, I agree with you, is very relevant to todays society. However, my post was in response to people here who seem to have taken their inspiration from the vengeful god of the old testament. I have noticed that most of people who have posted in favour of the death penalty have cited religion as the basis of their opinion.


at least they have a basis.
Reply 64
Unregistered
at least they have a basis.


Am I right in thinking that by that breif and uninformative post you mean that unless one cites religious teachings, you will not accept that they have a basis for their argument? Many people here have made intelligent arguments on the basis of their own moral beliefs and experiences, and yet you seem to be denying that the basis for their arguments exists purely because it is not of a religious nature.
Unregistered
Although I don't believe in God, that is a very good point.


Thanks for the support. I think so too!
Reply 66
truejoy
I'd say the death setence is right. I wouldn't want someone sho has killed someone lose on my street. Once in a million years there might be room for mercy.

'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth'


I'm curious about you, 'truejoy' - are you a student, and if so what Uni and subject (or A' levels) are you doing? Please post back.
Reply 67
Unregistered
at least they have a basis.


at least have the decency to register.

death penalty for murder and treason(including immigrants killing swans)
vienna95
at least have the decency to register.

death penalty for murder and treason(including immigrants killing swans)


lol I couldnt believe the whole thing about not being allowed to kill swans when I read about it!
Its not the same for all animals is it, just swans? Anyone know?
Reply 69
Unregistered
lol I couldnt believe the whole thing about not being allowed to kill swans when I read about it!
Its not the same for all animals is it, just swans? Anyone know?



Swans are the property of the Queen. Killing one is a hangable offence. Other animals would probably mean a fine or custodial sentence.
Reply 70
i think the death penalty is ok for proven murderers.
Haz
Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?


Right, but for criminals only.
Reply 72
lala
Oh that was me above, forgot to log in.


Lol, no. It's because the swan is a royal bird. There may be some others this applies to too, but I'm not that clued up on my animal killing laws.... :wink:
Death penalty is wrong for 2 reasons:

1 - in a lot of cases you can never be completely sure you have the right person.

2 - two wrongs don't make a right. To condemn someone to death is falling to their level. No human has the right to seal anothers death sentence. Simple.
I don't agree with the death penalty.

I feel that if I'm going to hold an opinion I should be willing to suffer the most negative consequences of that opinion ie I would only agree with the death penalty if I would be willing to be wrongly accused and killed under it...and I'm not willing for that to happen.

The most negative consequences of not agreeing with the death penalty is that some "bad" people live out their lives in prison instead of having their lives cut short...I'm happy to have that on my conscience.

State approved murder costs more that feeding/clothing/housing a prisoner for their entire life.

State approved murder does not act as a disincentive to criminals - criminals do not expect to be caught never mind punished.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...the golden rule - the commandment that overules all others...and the one that this athiest lives her life by.
Reply 75
Pencil Queen

State approved murder costs more that feeding/clothing/housing a prisoner for their entire life.

what gave you that idea.
edders
what gave you that idea.


This and the other similar studies - admittedly mainly based on the US model of the death penalty were appeal after appeal takes place...a more barbaric system would be cheaper :wink:
Reply 77
Unregistered
Death penalty is wrong for 2 reasons:

1 - in a lot of cases you can never be completely sure you have the right person.



alot of people support execution grounded on conviction by DNA and witnesses.


2 - two wrongs don't make a right. To condemn someone to death is falling to their level. No human has the right to seal anothers death sentence. Simple.


two wrongs mean one less murderer and a safe community. i would hasten to add prevention to that but the statistics arent healthy..
Reply 78
edders
what gave you that idea.



the fees to execute someone are pretty large..
Reply 79
vienna95
the fees to execute someone are pretty large..


It costs a lot more to imprison someone for life than to execute them.

Latest

Trending

Trending