Feds Restarting Executions?

[Orange]

On 7/26/2019 at 1:25 PM, KUGRDON said:

Some non-Christians, and Christians for that matter, think they are the authority on what Christians think or should think as the discussion here establishes.

I think what you're not grasping here is that the non-Christians (a) do not demand non-Christian legislation and (b) quote scripture to Xtians as a thought experiment, and not really as a literal suggestion that we turn to the bible for political guidance.

I'll tell a religious freak to go pound sand and I'll use bible verses as my justification all day long, but when it comes to policy, the death penalty just doesn't make sense on any level.  Lousy deterrent, expensive, immoral, poorly executed (pun not necessarily intended, but allowed).

[Orange]

On 7/26/2019 at 6:47 PM, Jalapeno said:

No one is perfect and for our actions, we will be all judged on Judgement Day.  All I can say is I hope God finds me worthy enough to walk through the gates of heaven.  I believe you feel the same way.

No one will even know 100 percent of the Bible.  It's nor my right to judge anyone either.  I'm not going to say anyone is right or wrong in this case but we can always share scripture on this forum in a respectable way.

I don't have any problems with LWOP but by having those people alive, they could influence the prisoners who are getting out to commit violence.  There are a lot of white supremacist, Muslim, gangs, etc in prison to brainwash those that will come out.  That is why anyone should support the DP as that person won't be able to influence the prisoners that way but there's also the martyr issue.  It's going to be interesting if El Chapo is still able to run his drug empire from the most secure prison in the US but I'm not counting on that happening.  Neither solution is perfect.

As for the DP, the penteorbital isn't much different from being in surgery except you are not going to wake up again.  Texas does their executions that way and without problems.  They even use it to put your dog or cat to sleep.

You better have the evidence and solid proof that the person is actually the murderer.  You can make a big deal about executing innocent people but there are still innocent people serving LWOP sentences and they might not be getting out either plus they could be suffering worse than death row members did before being executed.  Being raped in prison is one common experience that no one wants to experience.

The people on death row generally have two appeal avenues while those lifers only have one chance unless they pled quility.  Does lifers have it worse especially the ones that were found quility versus pleading guilty?

Just read some of the cases of the five people scheduled to be executed and ask yourself if any of them shouldn't die.  One is a white supremacist and one is a drug dealer who murdered his girlfriend's two daughters because they knew too much and other people to prevent them from testifying against him.  One raped his two and a half year old daughter in addition to killing her over state lines I think.

I dont expect all five to be executed but I think those three are as good as gone.

We don't need to "share" scripture in a respectable way.  Your "scripture" is not just mythical nonsense, but it actually DAMAGES debate, slows scientific and social progress, and dumbs people down (you're exhibit A).

As for the rapist's death penalty sentence, according to your bible, "thou shalt not rape" is not a commandment, but "thou shalt love no other god before me" or "thou shalt praise me on Saturday/Sunday exhaustively" some iteration of that jealous, vain insanity is repeated 3 times by "god".

Never expect me to "share scripture" in a respectable way when your own handbook not only permits, but CONDONES rape.

[PAC MAN]

2 hours ago, Orange said:

We don't need to "share" scripture in a respectable way.  Your "scripture" is not just mythical nonsense, but it actually DAMAGES debate, slows scientific and social progress, and dumbs people down (you're exhibit A).

As for the rapist's death penalty sentence, according to your bible, "thou shalt not rape" is not a commandment, but "thou shalt love no other god before me" or "thou shalt praise me on Saturday/Sunday exhaustively" some iteration of that jealous, vain insanity is repeated 3 times by "god".

Never expect me to "share scripture" in a respectable way when your own handbook not only permits, but CONDONES rape.

How about admitting that your attitude towards Christians is part of the problem when it comes to debate on this board?

[Orange]

1 hour ago, Jalapeno said:

How about admitting that your attitude towards Christians is part of the problem when it comes to debate on this board?

Nah.  This is my attitude toward Christianity.  If you're a christian, and we engage on the issues, I'm cool.  If you try to engage on the issues by pumping Christianity into the conversation, I will shut that shit down, because religion has no business in the public sphere whatsoever. 

We are a secular government.  Period.  

[Bruin 70]

2 hours ago, Orange said:

Nah.  This is my attitude toward Christianity.  If you're a christian, and we engage on the issues, I'm cool.  If you try to engage on the issues by pumping Christianity into the conversation, I will shut that shit down, because religion has no business in the public sphere whatsoever. 

We are a secular government.  Period.  

And you are an atheist pile of dung. Period. With the only real debate you have is hate and personal attack. Lets get real here.

[KUGRDON]

6 hours ago, Orange said:

Nah.  This is my attitude toward Christianity.  If you're a christian, and we engage on the issues, I'm cool.  If you try to engage on the issues by pumping Christianity into the conversation, I will shut that shit down, because religion has no business in the public sphere whatsoever. 

We are a secular government.  Period.  

This is blatantly false.  If you know someone is a Christian you inject religion, and you’re contempt for it, into the discussion.  You assert that the reason for the others position on an issue is their religion and use that to discredit them.  Done it a hundred thousand times.

Atheism is cool.  Your compulsive hate for religion inhibits debate, distracts from data and science and dumbs people down.  Anybody who reads your posts about religion has to ask what Sunday School teacher raped you on the church picnic.

Finally, Your statement that religion has no place in the public sphere whatsoever because we have a secular government reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law.

[PAC MAN]

6 hours ago, Orange said:

Nah.  This is my attitude toward Christianity.  If you're a christian, and we engage on the issues, I'm cool.  If you try to engage on the issues by pumping Christianity into the conversation, I will shut that shit down, because religion has no business in the public sphere whatsoever. 

We are a secular government.  Period.  

Did your mama ever tell you that if you didn't have anything nice to say, just don't say it at all?

And about what I can speak about:

You can always come back with a more respectful attitude towards others.

 

[Orange]

14 hours ago, KUGRDON said:

This is blatantly false.  If you know someone is a Christian you inject religion, and you’re contempt for it, into the discussion.  You assert that the reason for the others position on an issue is their religion and use that to discredit them.  Done it a hundred thousand times.

Atheism is cool.  Your compulsive hate for religion inhibits debate, distracts from data and science and dumbs people down.  Anybody who reads your posts about religion has to ask what Sunday School teacher raped you on the church picnic.

Finally, Your statement that religion has no place in the public sphere whatsoever because we have a secular government reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law.

See?  This is why you feel I berate you.  Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution yourself, and like that snowflake jalapeno, you can't possibly fathom the idea that white-anglo-saxon-protestant-christian values wouldn't be front-and-center for all policy discussions.

[Orange]

11 hours ago, Jalapeno said:

Did your mama ever tell you that if you didn't have anything nice to say, just don't say it at all?

And about what I can speak about:

You can always come back with a more respectful attitude towards others.

 

Go back to sucking a racist's dicks while you continue to pretend to be "christian."

 

[KUGRDON]

8 minutes ago, Orange said:

See?  This is why you feel I berate you.  Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution yourself, and like that snowflake jalapeno, you can't possibly fathom the idea that white-anglo-saxon-protestant-christian values wouldn't be front-and-center for all policy discussions.

I see you’re backing off because nobody said anything about Christian values being front and center in any discussion. They are permitted, however, in any discussion.  Moreover any person can base his/her decision as to how to vote on any person or policy based solely on religion.

[Orange]

1 minute ago, KUGRDON said:

I see you’re backing off because nobody said anything about Christian values being front and center in any discussion. They are permitted, however, in any discussion.  Moreover any person can base his/her decision as to how to vote on any person or policy based solely on religion.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I've said at all.

[KUGRDON]

Oh silly me, I thought discussing political issues, appealing to voters, petitioning govt, and voting were the “public square” in which you said religion has no place.

[Orange]

3 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

Oh silly me, I thought discussing political issues, appealing to voters and voting were the “public square”.

No, the public square is the specific policies we enact through Congress and the various state legislatures.  My comment was specifically in response to jalapeno demanding "respectful sharing of scripture."

[KUGRDON]

That’s an an usual view Of the “public square” But I fail  to see how jalapeños “demand” in a message board discussion affects what affects Congress or legislators.

Even given that strained interputation of Public Square, you are wrong. Any legislator can take into account his religious views in making any voting decisions.  What they cannot do is take action to establish a particular religion.

A legislator, for example, may Take into account any religious beliefs in determining how to vote on anything from food stamps to national defense.

[Orange]

42 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

That’s an an usual view Of the “public square” But I fail  to see how jalapeños “demand” in a message board discussion affects what affects Congress or legislators.

Even given that strained interputation of Public Square, you are wrong. Any legislator can take into account his religious views in making any voting decisions.  What they cannot do is take action to establish a particular religion.

A legislator, for example, may Take into account any religious beliefs in determining how to vote on anything from food stamps to national defense.

That is, at best, an imprecise description of the Establishment Clause, and at worst, a willfully dishonest one.

No "official religion" need be established to run afoul of that clause.

[KUGRDON]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

That is, at best, an imprecise description of the Establishment Clause, and at worst, a willfully dishonest one.

No "official religion" need be established to run afoul of that clause.

My point was not the precise point at which the establishment clause is violated, The point is that any legislator or president or any other public official can take his religious beliefs into account in making any decision or formulating any policy short of violating the establishment clause.  Religious beliefs have an equal place in the public sphere with beliefs of any secular philosophy or world view up to the point of violating the establishment clause.  For example, a legislator may certainly take into account the teachings of the Bible on the sanctity of personal property, compassion for the poor and personal responsibility in formulating food stamp policy.  The same is true for any teaching of the Bible and any specific policy.  It is just blatantly false to state that religion has no place in the “public sphere” even with the contorted and limited definition to which you resorted.

Since you have said nothing to defend your assertion that religion has no place in the public sphere in any subsequent post, I’ll take that as concession of the falsehood of the assertion rather that go down every rabbit hole you posit.

[Bruin 70]

2 hours ago, Orange said:

See?  This is why you feel I berate you.  Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution yourself, and like that snowflake jalapeno, you can't possibly fathom the idea that white-anglo-saxon-protestant-christian values wouldn't be front-and-center for all policy discussions.

One Nation under God. And God bless America. They have no place in your world. But Hell is not from where we operate.

[PAC MAN]

4 hours ago, Orange said:

Go back to sucking a racist's dicks while you continue to pretend to be "christian."

Thank you for reminding me to be thankful for the LORD being in my life.  I hope you find it within yourself to be more open minded than what you have demonstrated all those years of this board.

[Orange]

3 hours ago, KUGRDON said:

My point was not the precise point at which the establishment clause is violated, The point is that any legislator or president or any other public official can take his religious beliefs into account in making any decision or formulating any policy short of violating the establishment clause.  Religious beliefs have an equal place in the public sphere with beliefs of any secular philosophy or world view up to the point of violating the establishment clause.  For example, a legislator may certainly take into account the teachings of the Bible on the sanctity of personal property, compassion for the poor and personal responsibility in formulating food stamp policy.  The same is true for any teaching of the Bible and any specific policy.  It is just blatantly false to state that religion has no place in the “public sphere” even with the contorted and limited definition to which you resorted.

Since you have said nothing to defend your assertion that religion has no place in the public sphere in any subsequent post, I’ll take that as concession of the falsehood of the assertion rather that go down every rabbit hole you posit.

You're again arguing against a position I never put forth.  I can't tell if under-use of your attorney brain has decayed your reading comprehension skills, or if you're just showing off for jalapeno.

My remark was COMPLETELY in reaction to jalapeno's stupid "we should share scripture" with regard to politics.  At no point did I say it is illegal to talk about politics through a religious lens.  Never.  I assumed you knew that I do not have the legal authority to stop jalapeno from mentioning the bible, but perhaps you don't know that.  If that's the case, let me reassure you, I don't.  Does that help?   Do you feel better?  Do you need a snack?  A ride home?

[Orange]

3 hours ago, Bruin 70 said:

One Nation under God. And God bless America. They have no place in your world. But Hell is not from where we operate.

They also had no place in our world until the 1950s, moron.  None of the founding fathers saw fit to throw "god" into the Constitution, anywhere.   Our founding document is irreligious.