 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK
|
|
|
Subject: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:11 AM I read an article yesterday from a Cardinal O'Brien which to me was a very shrewd view on America. Some of his comments He said Scotland had a culture of care, while the US was fixed on vengeance. In an interview with BBC Scotland, Cardinal O'Brien said Americans were too focused on retribution. "In many states - more than half - they kill the perpetrators of horrible crimes, by lethal injection or even firing squad - I say that is a culture of vengeance," he said. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - that is not our culture in Scotland and I would like to think that the US government, and these states that do still have capital punishment, would learn something from us." He said the use of the death penalty meant the US kept "invidious company" with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. "In some states it's month by month now that they are killing people who have a right to live, whatever they've done wrong," he said. He also backed the Scottish government's decision not to give evidence to American senators "The Scottish government has made the decision and the Scottish government is answerable to the Scottish people - not the US government or US citizens. "Everyone acted according to Scots law in releasing a ***** on compassionate grounds, having taken medical advice. "I still think they did the right thing, although the man is still alive. "We shouldn't be crawling out to America, or having them come here and questioning us on our own territory." End of comments It's not very often I approve of what comes out of religious leaders mouths (not being religious myself), but for once, I found myself agreeing with this gentleman's comments. Do you think that his comments match how most people in the world see America, or is he talking claptrap? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: akenaton Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:52 AM The strange case of Muḥammad ʿAlî al-Maqraḥî, is shrouded in mystery. Politicians are not usually known for acting out of "principle", especially when the action is sure to set off a furore and be against the opinion of the electorate! The UK govt were anxious that Magrahi be released through the trumped-up prisoner exchange deal, one of Mr Blairs more devious ploys. As there was no love lost between Mr Salmonds devolved govt in Scotland, and the UK administration, the Scottish govt in my opinion engaged in a bit of political "sleight of hand", damaging the UK's deal with Gadaffi by refusing their covert appeals to release their prisoner under the exchange scheme, yet showing their independence by releasing him on their own "compassionate grounds" Just a simple piece of political oneupmanship.....with unfortunate consequences! Regarding your main point, people like Myra Hindley have been kept in jail by successive UK govts, because the public, rightly or wrongly, would not accept release....politicians are interested first and foremost in their own survival! As I said on another thread, although I am against the death penalty in principle....some crimes, like the rape and murder of small children are so unnatural and heinous that removal from the species seems the only reasonable course to take. nothing is purely black or white. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM The post that opened this thread has now been merged into an existing thread, and had a few replies. So why is it coming up again as a separate thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 09 Aug 10 - 07:23 AM Because it shouldn't have been included in that thread, but soembody from Mudact seemed to think ity should. I do not want this included in that thread - fullstop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Backwoodsman Date: 09 Aug 10 - 09:35 AM Oh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 09:50 AM "Do you think that his comments match how most people in the world see America, or is he talking claptrap? " His comments are personal and one-sided and do not even reflect what actually happens in "America", no matter what 'most people in the world' might think...and I don't think a complete survey has been done. The death penalty is legal in some states, but only Texas makes regular use of it. A few others use it occasionally. He stated "In some states it's month by month now that they are killing people who have a right to live, whatever they've done wrong," WHY do people have a right to live, no matter what they've done wrong? Does he not see the blatant, embedded assumptions in that? Does he have any idea what "some states" are facing in crime rates and prison population? Does he offer a workable alternative? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:21 AM The death penalty as a cure for prison overcrowding? Interesting thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Silas Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:22 AM Go Cardinal! Well done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:45 AM "The death penalty as a cure for prison overcrowding? Interesting thought." Not a very happy alternative, is it? Much better to not have people being murdered OUTSIDE prison. We have a populace that supports guns being legal, yet who doesn't want the death penalty for USING those guns to kill. VERY interesting. (One more big workplace mass murder last week.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:54 AM Over here, one network runs a series on prisons Lockup Watch a few episodes and note what work it is to even cope with the worst offenders, many of whom are openly dedicated to killing members of rival gangs, and even prison guards, since 'time in solitary' is about the worst punishment they can get when they are already serving 2-3 life-without-parole sentences. Some prisons can barely keep qualified staff because the job is just too stressful & dangerous. I am not making recommendations....I am looking for some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: John MacKenzie Date: 09 Aug 10 - 11:12 AM The USA is a violent society, and that is predicated upon the prevalence of guns. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution, but as the old joke has it, it may as well say, the right to arm bears! I loathe guns and all that they signify. You may say 'I need to defend myself and my family', but if there weren't so many guns, there wouldn't be so many armed criminals. It's putting the cart before the horse. NOBODY who is not in uniform in the UK has the right to carry arms, concealed or openly. It is ONLY when on duty and in uniform, that they are allowed to carry guns too! Handguns are banned! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 11:45 AM I am on record as advocating a similar policy here. I see NO good reason for the average citizen to own handguns...even though several good friends regularly disagree with me. Sadly, it is almost as scary as permitting free gun ownership to imagine the chaos & carnage if we tried to ban them and take them away. Too many people treat their 'right' to 'bear arms' as something approaching Holy....when even the Constitution is a bit ambiguous when read carefully. I have no idea what to do...except to hope, and to try to stay away from places where there is danger. This is not easy, because there have been instances of gun violence less than 5 minutes from where I live, in facilities where *I* might occasionally go. I am cursed with the training to see the flawed logic in both opposing the death penalty and allowing almost unlimited access to weapons, while at the same time decrying any unnecessary taking of life. I suppose it's a bit like living in the Middle East or Afghanistan.... forces are out of control, and what will happen will happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: VirginiaTam Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:53 PM I agree with the Cardinal.. generally Americans are very vengeance oriented, especially and ironically among the bible thumping "moral majority" set. So much for forgiveness and loving thy enemy and so forth. Another reason I am a recovering baptist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:11 PM So the US prison system, already massively the biggest pro rata in the civilised world, is actually overcrowded. And even a wise guy like Bill D sees the death penalty as a solution. Better to question the values of a society that needs such a huge wall between its rich and poor. Clearly the cardinal is on to something. There IS a cultural divide, and it's along the lines he indicated. There may be no polls, Bill D, but follow the cardinal's advice and look at the company the US keeps when it comes to judicial killing. (Within the past few years Amnesty reported that the US and Yemen were the only countries in the world which admitted executing people who had committed their crimes before the age of 18.) Or just look at US v UK contributions here on Mudcat whenever such issues as crime prevention are discussed. You argue that maybe some people forfeit the right to live. But the cardinal was begging another question: Who has the right to decide? The fact that you and many more intelligent Americans think "we do" simply proves the cardinal's thesis. The Megrahi business is similarly illustrative. Almost all the American Pan-Am relatives want Megrahi to die in prison and have entirely closed their minds (as it seems has the whole of America) to the very real possibility that he isn't even guilty; almost all the British relatives supported his release on compassionate grounds. Sorry, Bill D, but it all adds up, and for once in my life I find myself saying the cardinal got it exactly right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:21 PM I also agree with the cardinal - at least in most part. And that is very very rare for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:21 PM (Posted by me in follow-up to Arthur-itis's initial in that other thread): A comment by Alex Salmon, the Scottish First Minister, is perhaps relevant in the context of the concerns raised by those complaining that al Megrahi has lived longer than predicted at the time of his release: "I'm not a doctor, but I think it's entirely possible that life expectancy in Greenock (Prison)is somewhat shorter than someone's life expectancy on progressive drugs and treatment in Tripoli." The average age for men who die of natural causes while in prison in the UK is 56. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 09 Aug 10 - 03:57 PM some good points. It would be nice to know the country of each poster, so we can evaluate accordingly. So for example I am English, but still support the comments from the Scottish Cardinal (Not sure if he is, but he is certainly based there). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 04:28 PM "..even a wise guy like Bill D sees the death penalty as a solution. " You put words in my mouth, and the cardinal indulges in sweeping generalization. In one sense, the death penalty is a solution....just as 'transportation' was one sort of solution for perceived 'crimes' England 2-3 hundred years ago. Not a good solution, but a solution. The cardinal makes the very common mistake, made almost daily here on Mudcat by someone from Europe, of trying to paint the USA with a very broad brush. Yes....'some' states allow the death penalty, but as I carefully said, MOST do not use it often. There are areas in the U.S. where they could not possibly pass death penalty legislation. Hawaii, for example...and Massachusetts see here for state by state review Some states that legally allow the death penalty have barely used it since 1976..(Oregon, for example) Now...how does all that make the USA as a whole "...a culture of vengeance"? Scotland is small and a LOT more culturally cohesive on such matters. The US is huge and has VERY wide disparity on matters of law & morality. *I* could not live in a state like Texas or Alabama or S. Carolina...it would drive me crazy to pretend I didn't notice certain ways & attitudes I consider ignorant and narrow-minded. (I got away from Kansas as soon as I could!) This is "The United States of America", and that 'united' part is not well observed by a few of the states, except for raising an army. I see very well the cardinal's POINT about respect for life, but comparing the USA to Iran or Saudi Arabia is ludicrous!....and I repeat the last 2 parts of my first post, with added emphasis: "He stated "In some states it's month by month now that they are killing people who have a right to live, whatever they've done wrong," WHY do people have a right to live, no matter what they've done wrong? Does he not see the blatant, embedded assumptions in that? Does he have any idea what "some states" are facing in crime rates and prison population?/ Does he offer a workable alternative?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 04:34 PM To make VERY clear...I do not advocate the death penalty, I merely understand why some do when faced with extreme levels of crimes and horrible prison overcrowding. I do not KNOW the 'best' answer, but I read history and I do know that attitudes toward 'vengance' and crime & punishment are very much influenced by religion, culture and basic perceived quality of life, and these things change over time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 09 Aug 10 - 04:50 PM Http/1.1 Service Unavailable What does that mean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: John MacKenzie Date: 09 Aug 10 - 04:59 PM Everybody has the right to life. If it is wrong for someone to kill, then it is equally wrong for the state, which after all is composed of individuals, including you and I, to kill too. If the state is government of the people, by the people, for the people, then the people are killing the culprit. Also they are doing it in our name! An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, means just that, After all it also says, "Though shalt not kill" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:36 PM **** Http/1.1 Service Unavailable What does that mean **** It's Ok it was one of the ads, that wasn't displaying. It's now sorted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:46 PM Surely the most important point is this: - "The Scottish government has made the decision and the Scottish government is answerable to the Scottish people - not the US government or US citizens" I said as much on another thread some time ago. The USA is slipping into a very bad habit of failing to recognise the sovereignty of other nations, and permitting indeed in some cases supporting and organising not merely commercial and cultural and linguistic colonisation but more formal attempts at coercing the behaviour of other places. And for the benefit of the spellcheck I have correctly spelt recognise, organising and colonisation, oh, and spelt. Bah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 05:49 PM "If it is wrong for someone to kill, then it is equally wrong for the state...." the operant word being *IF*...One can find justification for almost any position one wishes to take in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM Several Scottish jurists stated that a correct verdict would have been "not proven." As Richard Bridge states, it was a Scottish decision. What the laws are or what the verdict would have been in the U. S. or England is immaterial. (However one can only smile when Richard persists in quaint, old-fashioned spellings that persist on those little islands). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:46 PM comparing the USA to Iran or Saudi Arabia is ludicrous! In saying that, Bill D, you are comparing them, and on the basis of that comparison indicate that you think there are very significant differences. That's what "comparison" is about. What the Cardinal actually said the US kept "invidious company" with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Insofar as these are among the minority of countries which have retained the death penalty, that is perfectly true. Here's a fuller list of such countries: * Afghanistan * Antigua and Barbuda * Bahamas * Bahrain * Bangladesh * Barbados * Belarus * Belize * Botswana * Burundi * Cameroon * Chad * China (People's Republic) * Comoros * Congo (Democratic Republic) * Cuba * Dominica * Egypt * Equatorial Guinea * Eritrea * Ethiopia * Gabon * Ghana * Guatemala * Guinea * Guyana * India * Indonesia * Iran * Iraq * Jamaica * Japan * Jordan * Korea, North * Korea, South * Kuwait * Laos * Lebanon * Lesotho * Libya * Malawi * Malaysia * Mongolia * Nigeria * Oman * Pakistan * Palestinian Authority * Qatar * St. Kitts and Nevis * St. Lucia * St. Vincent and the Grenadines * Saudi Arabia * Sierra Leone * Singapore * Somalia * Sudan * Swaziland * Syria * Taiwan * Tajikistan * Tanzania * Thailand * Trinidad and Tobago * Uganda * United Arab Emirates * United States * Vietnam * Yemen * Zambia * Zimbabwe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM Countries that do not permit the death penalty would be a much shorter list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 09 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM "As I said on another thread, although I am against the death penalty in principle....some crimes, like the rape and murder of small children are so unnatural and heinous that removal from the species seems the only reasonable course to take." Alas our legal system is far from perfect akenaton. Even with all the fancy evidence gathering techniques and such these days there would still be miscarriages of justice. Innocent people would be put to death with no chance of a review turning up later evidence that would save them. That cannot and never must be acceptable. We have seen enough people wrongly imprisoned of late that would have been given the death penalty. How could we get them back? At least if they are alive behind walls they can be released and compensated (though quite how one gives an innocent person compensation I have no true idea). We must not: We cannot have a death penalty because our system is flawed and imperfect. As for reducing prison populations. What happens when we have killed all the murderers and rapists (even if we had a 100% hit rate of true prosecutions)? Who do we start on next? Manslaughter prisoners maybe? Okay... then who next? .... until we start killing people who disagree with us, or people who are different or whatever. Back we go to those times we all now call primitive and uncivilised. The death penalty is state sponsored murder. It is seldom humane. None of us can be free in a country that has an imperfect legal system and the death penalty. All of us, any one of us, could be the one person who is innocent who is gassed, fried, injected, hung, shot, whatever.... because the system can be wrong and it can be fixed and manipulated too. We have to err on the side of being able to make amends. How would you feel if that innocent person was you? (All of this said in acceptance too that very few here are in favour of the death penalty) What the Scots did was their business to do. Whether the man was guilty or innocent he has certainly become a scapegoat for people to focus their hate on and thoughts that their relatives have got some justice. But how many of those relatives would feel it justified to hold an innocent man in jail - or have him murdered - for their own sake? I doubt there would be many if any. Likewise, demonsing the Americans and a whole people is wrong too. Not all Americans want war waged in their name. I suspect most are not vengeful. They are however, human. Revenge is a very human trait. Certainly the emotion is very strong. Not all Americans want the death sentence either. We need to be very careful and clear about what has been said above about just how diverse the Americans (and seperate States) are. If I had lost someone on that flight I am sure I would feel I wanted some justice. Yes. I too may want that person(s) dead. The risk of getting the right people in any crime, unless actually caught in the act, must always hold a question mark of safety just in case we get it wrong. I cannot judge anyone their feelings. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 09 Aug 10 - 08:30 PM "In saying that, Bill D, you are comparing them, and on the basis of that comparison indicate that you think there are very significant differences. " Interesting point you attempt to make.... *I* did not choose the language using Iran and Saudi Arabia as examples, but you are correct that I do think "there are very significant differences." First, I refer you to my long post about various states, which you seem not to have noticed, noting that the polices in the US vary widely. Policies in Iran and Saudi Arabia are pretty monolithic and not subject to voting by the public....don't you think THAT is a 'significant difference'? Second, a list 'proving' that the USA is one country that sometimes allows the death penalty is superfluous...that was not in question. Third, there seems to be some doubt whether this is about me, the USA or the cardinal...or the point the cardinal was trying to make. *I* asserted that his point was a sweeping generalization, and went on to show how that did not accurately represent the US in general. Various folks here seem to wish to just insinuate that a couple of undisputed facts, plus a couple of assumptions based on personal or cultural values 'proves' some sort of moral superiority to the USA as a whole. I stated that *I* am not defending the death penalty, and that many, many Americans...plus a number of states... wish to abolish it totally. I still fail to see why it seems so necessary to condemn an entire country in order to promote YOUR agreement to one Scottish cleric. There are many in the UK and Europe in general who do not 'seem' to appreciate how diverse the US is and what a huge issue 'states rights' is here...in capital punishment, in gun control, in voting procedures, in laws on alcohol, in highway laws and speed limits, in 'age of consent' and marriage laws...etc., etc. I see lots of complaints, but little attempt to understand what this fairy young attempt at a democratic republic is up against. I rather envy you 'some' of your long history and universal attitudes, but holding a position firmly and pointing fingers at others obligates no one to agree with all the details. If I still have failed to insert the nuances I feel are necessary into the discussion, so be it.... I have tried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:43 AM One needs to be careful about akenaton. That something is unnatural does not mean that doing it should be punished by death. For example, most of us cook meat before eating it, wear clothes (most of the time), and do not live in trees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:58 AM OK, so my original question was *** Do you think that his comments match how most people in the world see America, or is he talking claptrap? *** For me, the most significant comment was *** "The Scottish government has made the decision and the Scottish government is answerable to the Scottish people - not the US government or US citizens. *** I see America as an interfering country. They seem to think they can demand and do whatever they like to other countries, as though they are in charge. They are not and should butt out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 10 Aug 10 - 03:48 AM "Do you think that his comments match how most people in the world see America, or is he talking claptrap?" I think the postings prove that, regardless of the facts, this is how America is seen by the rest of the world (and this is by their friends). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 10 Aug 10 - 04:30 AM 100% behind the Cardinal. (Sorry, couldn't resist it...) Mind you, he has more than a point. Some of what he says isn't just opinion, it is a statement of facts. Scottish politicians are answerable to Scottish voters, full stop. If you bring in the political aspect, then you have to accept that the US senate may have a right to get to the bottom of this, but it has no right, morally or legally to sit in judgement of other countries, whilst at the same time calling them "partners." I loved it when George Galloway, a politician I don't have much time for but however, he did appear when they were discussing Saddam Hussain. I loved the bit about visiting Saddam the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeldt, the difference being he wasn't selling him arms. As a British citizen, I am somewhat suspicious that the US senate think they are a higher court of authority than any equivalent in other countries. A bit disingenuous when you think about it. After all, they debate federal issues, and correct me if I am wrong, but the USA still murder prisoners for federal offences? Methinks the progress of civilisation still has a "keep banging the rocks together guys" aspect to it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Teribus Date: 10 Aug 10 - 11:12 AM The Cardinal is perfectly correct. This by the way is not: After all it also says, "Though shalt not kill" Correctly translated that particular commandment should read "Thou shalt not commit murder" There is one hell of a difference. If it did merely state "Thou shalt not kill", where would it leave us? Vegetarian? "Thou shalt not kill" what? Under what circumstances? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM "I see America as an interfering country. They seem to think they can demand and do whatever they like to other countries, as though they are in charge. You did not link to the original article you mention, so 'exactly' who was involved from the US senate is not clear. "As a British citizen, I am somewhat suspicious that the US senate think they are a higher court of authority than any equivalent in other countries" Again.... just as we have STATES which are more conservative, we also have SENATORS who are conservative and take it on themselves to go on 'missions', often under the auspices of some religious group. They do NOT speak for or represent either the Senate OR the US as a whole. *IF* some US senators appeared to meddle or criticize the workings of the Scottish government, they should be ashamed....but so far I have no idea what prompted the cardinal to say what he did. I think *I* will see if I can sort out what actually occurred using Google. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM Congressmen are prone to off-the-cuff statements that they think will please the folks back home although they know that the content is questionable. In other words, ignore or quarrel with them as you wish, but remember that they cannot make policy without the votes of a majority of their colleagues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:00 PM took all of 12 seconds: "Four US senators have written to Foreign Secretary William Hague curtly demanding more information to help clear up the "public pall" over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya." Now I get it... it's about Scotland's role in releasing that convicted bomber....and it seems that even in Scotland the cardinal's comments are not universally approved FOUR US senators, and NOT trying to 'change Scotland', but merely expressing a desire for more information about the release of a convicted killer on a medical pretext. Kinda alters the debate a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Silas Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:02 PM The basic problem is that very, very few UK people trust American politicians, probably with very good reason. We hardly trust our own, but at least we feel confident that they don't portray the British as a nation of morons, sadly, that cannot be said of American politicians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:11 PM Here is a LONG discussion of the issue, with many Scots participants. I am not sure how folks jumped from the fact that many Americans were upset that the man who murdered so many Americans was released so casually, to condemnation of the death penalty and the presumed 'entire culture' of the US....(I don't see anywhere that there was any attempts by the US to have the man extradited and executed....people were just upset to see his arriving home to a hero's welcome in Libya) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Silas Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM He could never have been extradited to the US simply because you DO have the death penalty, so that is a bit of a red herring. He was bound to have a 'hero's welcome' nothing much could be done about that really. He didn't 'murder' just Americans you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Arthur_itus Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM Bill the person in your link who seems to disaprove, is this person. http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/07/frank-duggan-for-families.html He is not Scottish, is he. He looks like a political buddy of Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM How can it be that I agree with Teribus and a cardinal, and both in the same thread? I need to lie down.... Sorry Bill D for going a bit too far, but it did seem like you were skirting quite close to what I said you said. Your "most states don't do it often" line (not your exact words) has a clutching-at-straws ring to it, and the fact that some of what happens in the US - unlike in, say, Saudi - is determined by popular vote suggests the cardinal was right to talk about America the nation rather than about only its politicians and government. But the cardinal was indeed generalising as you say,and we all need to accept that any generalisation will embrace exceptions. It's a pity this thread was given such an inept title. Including "Megrahi" or "US" in rhe title would have resulted in a more even-handed discussion. One of the values of Mudcat is that it thrusts together differing cultures from east and west of the Atlantic, but this time, alas, Bill D seems to be on his own in putting forward the west-side perspective. As Ake has observed, the UK government vacillated on the question of whether Megrahi should be excluded from the Libya-UK prisoner transfer agreement. The decision to include him was no doubt driven by oil interests, but was probably academic. His transfer under that agreement would have been open to legal challenge as it violated the UN terms under which the Pan-Am defendants were tried under Scottish law. Those terms specified that any resulting jail sentences had to be served in the UK. According to the (London) Sunday Times I think (but can't check now) US embassy staff in London advised the Scottish government that the US would rather see Megrahi released than transferred to a Libyan prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:23 PM "Countries that do not permit the death penalty would be a much shorter list. " Actually it wouldn't be, its significatly longer. * Albania (2000) * Andorra (1990) * Angola (1992) * Argentina (2008) * Armenia (2003) * Australia (1984) * Austria (1950) * Azerbaijan (1998) * Belgium (1996) * Bhutan (2004) * Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997) * Bulgaria (1998) * Cambodia (1989) * Canada (1976) * Cape Verde (1981) * Chile (2008) * Colombia (1910) * Cook Islands (2007) * Costa Rica (1877) * Côte d'Ivoire (2000) * Croatia (1990) * Cyprus (1983) * Czech Republic (1990) * Denmark (1933) * Djibouti (1995) * Dominican Republic (1966) * East Timor (1999) * Ecuador (1906) * Estonia (1998) * Finland (1949) * France (1981) * Georgia (1997) * Germany (1949) * Greece (1993) * Guinea-Bissau (1993) * Haiti (1987) * Honduras (1956) * Hungary (1990) * Iceland (1928) * Ireland (1990) * Italy (1947) * Kiribati (1979) * Liberia (2005) * Liechtenstein (1987) * Lithuania (1998) * Luxembourg (1979) * Macedonia (1991) * Malta (1971) * Marshall Islands (1986) * Mauritius (1995) * Mexico (2005) * Micronesia (1986) * Moldova (1995) * Monaco (1962) * Montenegro (2002) * Mozambique (1990) * Namibia (1990) * Nepal (1990) * Netherlands (1870) * New Zealand (1961) * Nicaragua (1979) * Niue (n.a.) * Norway (1905) * Palau (n.a.) * Panama (1903) * Paraguay (1992) * Poland (1997) * Portugal (1867) * Philippines (2006) * Romania (1989) * Rwanda (2007) * Samoa (2004) * San Marino (1848) * São Tomé and Príncipe (1990) * Senegal (2004) Those are the onesd that have formally abolished the death panalty, Here's a list of ones that have de facto abolished it, but in theory they still have it on the statute books: * Algeria (1993) * Benin (1987) * Brunei Darussalam (1957) * Burkina Faso (1988) * Central African Republic (1981) * Congo (Republic) (1982) * Eritrea (n.a.) * Gabon (n.a.) * Gambia (1981) * Ghana (n.a.) * Grenada (1978) * Kenya (n.a.) * Korea, South (n.a.) * Laos (n.a.) * Liberia (n.a.) * Madagascar (1958) * Malawi (n.a.) * Maldives (1952) * Mali (1980) * Mauritania (1987) * Morocco (1993) * Myanmar (1993) * Nauru (1968) * Niger (1976) * Papua New Guinea (1950) * Russia (1999) * Sri Lanka (1976) * Suriname (1982) * Swaziland (n.a.) * Tajikistan (n.a.) * Tanzania (n.a.) * Togo (n.a.) * Tonga (1982) * Tunisia (1990) * Zambia (n.a.) * Serbia (2002) * Seychelles (1993) * Slovak Republic (1990) * Slovenia (1989) * Solomon Islands (1966) * South Africa (1995) * Spain (1978) * Sweden (1921) * Switzerland (1942) * Turkey (2002) * Turkmenistan (1999) * Tuvalu (1978) * Ukraine (1999) * United Kingdom (1973) * Uruguay (1907) * Uzbekistan (2008) * Vanuatu (1980) * Vatican City (1969) * Venezuela (1863) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:24 PM Bill D, I cross-posted. Look back at the original post and you will see that the cardinal's comments, which are what we are discussing, ranged much wider than the Megrahi episode. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM Yes... I SEE that his comments 'ranged much wider'...which is one of the criticisms of him by some in Scotland. One of the issues IS whether he is justified in using the inquiry to invoke his 'wider' condemnation of the US. (and yes, Authur-itus, Duggan was a loud voice left over from the Bush era. He has no 'official' status, except as an advocate representing some of the victim's families.) Duggan is fairly well known for conservative activism here...just as it seems the Scottish cardinal is known for activism which many consider beyond his role as a clergyman. It is all well & good to air and debate MANY issues, but it is also important to be careful who is 'linked' to what by innuendo and careless generalization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:57 PM Peter K..."Your "most states don't do it often" line (not your exact words) has a clutching-at-straws ring to it," Not at all! It is a clarification! ...and it is fact. I noted that Texas, the worst 'offender' in executions is a place *I* could not live, due to serious conflicts with my own political & cultural attitudes. (Many Texans posture seriously about seceding from the US...and not a few would allow them to go!) and Kevin.... what am I to make of MORE long lists? And why are not various US states listed in the positions they belong...as allowing or denying the death penalty? In this matter they effective function AS separate countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM Ummmm..."... but this time, alas, Bill D seems to be on his own in putting forward the west-side perspective." Yes... I wonder why. Perhaps the title itself didn't 'draw' US members. Many are bantering with Amos & Kendall & olddude on other topics... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM My first list was a relatively short list, of countries which still use the death penalty - if US states which do so were included it would of course be a longer list, but still shorter than the list of countries which have got rid of it. My second list was a response to Q's rather naive assumption that "Countries that do not permit the death penalty would be a much shorter list." And that list would be a bit longer with some non-death penalty states in the USA added. I appreciate that different states in the USA have a very different record on this - in fact Michigan in 1847 was the first English speaking territory to abolish the death penalty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM Previous thread: - detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2948593 It is not correct to seek to limit those guilty of US interference on this matter in the affairs of a foreign sovereign state to four individual senators - with the implication that the interference is not the creature of US government. Demands for witnesses to attend in the USA were made by the senate foreign relations committee - not merely as the demands of four individual senators. Moreover, President Obama (who I mostly admire) stepped into gunboat mode by saying all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release. The implicit accusations by the US government are also two-faced. By letter of the 12th August 2009 a letter that the US authorities tried to keep secret, Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London wrote to Alex Salmond (first minister of Scotland) that the United States wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime, but critically the letter added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose." LeBaron also added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland "would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi's release". It seems to me that the US government is acting in a way that is most insulting to the UK and to Scotland, as if the US government has any entitlement to review UK and Scottish decisions and actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: dick greenhaus Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:22 PM "If it is wrong for someone to kill, then it is equally wrong for the state...." Without taking sides, I fail to see the logic of that statement, unless one is talking about a theocracy based on Judeo/Christian beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:26 PM Richard... in what way is the opinion expressing US preference about the release either 'interfering' OR 'insulting? I can't see that anyone expressed 'entitlement' to review Scottish decisions. "a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer" is merely a position and opinion. Why would the US NOT at least clarify its attitude? What did happen is as was feared... releasing him to Libya served to give him hero status and further degrade relations with the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill. Deuteronomy 5:17: Thou shalt not kill. Matthew 5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ************************************************************ No Dick I'm talking about it being wrong to kill, no matter by whom, or for what reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM Samuel 1:17 "David and Goliath confront each other, Goliath with his armor and shield, David with his staff and sling. "The Philistine cursed David by his gods," but David replies: "This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that God saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is God's, and he will give you into our hand." Joshua 10:10 "And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- here is one reply from a forum: "When it is rightly understood, there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are, however, many seeming contradictions. You point out a good one. How can God issue a Commandment that states, "Thou shall not kill" (Ex. 20:13), and yet in the very next chapter say, "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17)? The answer is that the Commandment is not to be understood as a blanket condemnation of taking life. The larger context makes that clear. For example, Moses, who received the Ten Commandments directly from God & spoke to God face to face, did not view all killing as a violation of the Commandment given in Ex. 20:13 & Deut. 5:17. He advised the Israelites, "But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive" (Deut. 20:16). The Commandment, when properly viewed in the light of the rest of the Bible, would be better translated as, "Thou shall not murder." The taking of life has never been prohibited in the Bible. What is prohibited is the taking of innocent life, that is, murder." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:58 PM I was surprised and disappointed by Obama's opposition to Megrahi's release. I had hoped Obama might lead the US away from seeing retribution as the only effective response to crime. What good does it do to keep the old and infirm in prison? I think the UK posters in this thread are fairly accurate in their perception of the US majority opinion on this issue. It has long been said that it is political suicide for a US politician to oppose the death penalty, and I think that's true. If a politician openly opposes the death penalty, he/she can't get elected. The US is a country where "justice" and "punishment" are synonyms, where "security" is achieved only with weapons, where a five-year prison sentence is considered a "slap on the wrist," and where a prison with a gymnasium is condemned as a "country club prison." In my 25 years as a federal investigator, I worked with courts and police agencies, and I visited a good number of jails and prisons. I think that gave me a realistic view of the US criminal justice system. And let me tell you - it's not justice, and it doesn't work. -Joe- John MacKenzie, we may disagree on some things, but I agree absolutely with everything you've said in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 04:09 PM I'm curious, Joe about exactly what you agree with, since John has made only 2 comments here- one basically about the difference between the US & UK laws on guns, (which *I* agree with) and the other about the Bible's injunction against killing, which I pointed out was a bit ambiguous. Do you DISagree with me about interpreting the Bible? (I know it's been debated for years by scholars bigger than either of us) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM If you treat the whole Bible as Gospel truth, it'll poison you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Aug 10 - 05:25 PM Thanks Richard for verifying the point I made about the US admin line on whether Megrahi should have been transferred to a Libyan prison. Bill D suggests the proferred was harmless and inocuous (likewise presumably Obama's giving voice to Ameria's "anger"). He needs to reflect that any tiny country receiving such advice from the most powerful nation on earth needs a degree of nerve and a spirit bordering on reckless to ignore it. (I believe the US has bombed about 50 countries since WW2 so adding Scotland to the list would e no big deal.) Bill, as I said when I made the point about your relative isolation here, the thread title suggests a parochial discussion of little interest beyond Scotland. Since I made the point, you have been joined by Joe, but I don't think we could say his contribution has helped your cause any! John, I thought Dick was perhaps suggesting that countries who order their affairs independently of Moses & Co (amd perhaps other religious interference) might not subscribe to the (New Testament) concept of the sanctity of life? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:15 PM I'm a serious pacifist, Bill, and I agree with John that we really don't have the right to take the life of another human being, no matter what that person has done. I'll add a self-defense clause to that, but only if the person presents a direct and immediate threat. Yeah, yeah, I can think of all kinds to reasons to Our prisons and our capital punishment have not made America a safer place. By the way, the Catholic Church is officially opposed to capital punishment, and it has opposed the American wars in the Persian Gulf. This makes conservative American Catholics very nervous. They like to condemn us liberals for being "cafeteria Catholics" and tending to ignore some policies...but they do an interesting dance in trying to explain how opposition to the death penalty is "not really" Catholic policy. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:26 PM "(...any tiny country receiving such advice from the most powerful nation on earth needs a degree of nerve and a spirit bordering on reckless to ignore it. I believe the US has bombed about 50 countries since WW2 so adding Scotland to the list would be no big deal.)" *sigh* Such a comment is implicitly embedded with unwarranted suppositions and personal biases. (and I wonder whose count of 'bombed countries' is referenced) I cannot conceive of any matter that might warrant such an act. My impression is that Scotland has/had no problem at all in shrugging and doing exactly what they wish in the matter. Many Americans were disappointed that such a convicted killer was so easily released when it 'appears' that his medical assessment was possibly negatively exaggerated. We can agree to disagree on exactly how the case should have been handled, and we can also disagree on the 'righteousness' of allowing or forbidding capital punishment, but I hate to see exaggerated rhetoric that tries to turn 'gray areas' into black & white comparisons that unfairly represent certain views. Ok... I guess I've done about all I can do to inject relevant explanations and qualifications about the US position and attitudes. Living here, I SEE why others who take a strong position against capital punishment would be unhappy that we can't easily adapt to the more common position...but I still think it was irresponsibly inserted by the cardinal into the issue of Megrahi's release. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: akenaton Date: 10 Aug 10 - 06:32 PM Richard Bridge...."One needs to be careful about akenaton. That something is unnatural does not mean that doing it should be punished by death." A typically clumsy attempt by Richard to link my post to the Ugandan thread. I was actually talking about people like Mr Robert Black, who raped and murdered several young children in the UK a few years ago. Although obviously mad, Mr Blacks' crimes were of such a magnitude and of such an unnatural and horrific nature, that rehabilitation,or release at any time in the future would be impossible. Do you think Richard, that we are behaving more humanely in locking Mr Black up with his demons for the rest of his life, rather than putting him swiftly out of his misery? Personally, I would extend Mr Blacks catagory to include warmongering world leaders, and the designers of the latest form of satellite guided super bombs, which can destroy whole families with the touch of a button. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Aug 10 - 02:38 AM ake. ensure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear. Nothing that you have said above means that all unnatural things deserve punishment by death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Silas Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:38 AM It now appears that our friends across the pond are asking for the medical records - why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:41 AM Citation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: John MacKenzie Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:48 AM I suspect that the evidence that Megrahi has terminal cancer, is stronger than the evidence on which he was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:54 AM Post is from Silas. Identity verified by Joe Offer- "Citation?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10924910 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:30 AM Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Aug 10 - 05:41 AM Wonderfully put, John McK. Bill, I was not of course being entirely serious about the prospect of the US bombing Scotland (as people of the east-Atlantic cultures would have recognised at once). But it is surely beyond argument that since WW2 you lot have bombd more than 40 countries, if not actually 50? I am not completely blind to your arguments, but in the context of this thread I am more interested in whether differences exist than in which culture is "right." From my own encounters with the American psyche (and admittedly it's a sweeping generalisation) I think Joe's assessment of it is much more realistic than yours. To me it differs markely from that in the UK and indeed in western and central Europe more generally, and the cardinal's perceptions are unarguable. You yourself may not conform to the cardinal's stereotype but this would not mean his generalisation was unfair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: akenaton Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:09 AM Richard, put on spectacles before opening Mudcat. Where exactly, did I say that "all unnatural things deserve punishment by death"? As you probably know, my meaning was that some crimes are beyond redemption,and in those cases it is perhaps more "humane" to remove those involve from society |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:45 AM "some crimes, like the rape and murder of small children are so unnatural and heinous that removal from the species seems the only reasonable course to take" Whether crimes merit a particular punishment is nothing to do with whether they are unnatural. Your espousal of the death penalty itself merits criticism, but to base it on things being "unnatural" smacks only of blind prejudice. Go and tell it to your invisible friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: mauvepink Date: 11 Aug 10 - 10:32 AM akenaton wrote: "Do you think Richard, that we are behaving more humanely in locking Mr Black up with his demons for the rest of his life, rather than putting him swiftly out of his misery?" What an interesting moral and ethical dilemma. Should we 'put down' people who have killed through madness? Not kill them out of vengeance but out of mercy and humanity. What a thread that would make! I shall make one so as not to ruin this thread as I think it is a topic worthy of debate. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: Bill D Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM I have been reading 'most' of the various BBC links at the bottom of the page noted above as a 'citation'. It seems there is a wide divergence of opinion, even in England and Scotland, about what should have been done with al Megrahi and whether medical records should be released. PeterK... I'm glad to hear you were NOT "being entirely serious" about the prospect of the US bombing Scotland, but it IS hard to read body language in such texts. I was not prepared for even a partial joke in serious discussion. You say "... I am more interested in whether differences exist... and "... this would not mean his generalisation was unfair." Of course differences exist, but they exist even in Scotland and the rest of Europe, which is why most generalizations are deceptive, unless carefully documented and context explained. The one the cardinal made, and now promoted and rubber-stamped even by some on this thread, tends to ignore that many others, like myself "... may not conform to the cardinal's stereotype.. There is an amazing amount of "USA bashing" going on these days...perhaps because it is easier to proclaim a stereotype than to type a detailed critique of various issues with citations. ((I'm sure that every country and culture can easily be stereotyped in various negative ways. I saw a LOT of 'variety of culture' in the recent World Cup that worried me. I do question the usefulness of the practice, though.)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- and Joe... while I do appreciate the personal 'pacifist' view, and truly admire anyone who can hold it in todays world, I still am curious about how various people (not just yourself) who DO take the Christian Bible seriously can 'decide' which of the many contradictory views of killing noted in the Bible to espouse. I suppose in the end it IS just a 'personal attitude'....but if so, that would make those who DO allow capital punishment just as 'righteous' as those who do not. I spent 130 hours of college Philosophy courses struggling with every possible answer to such questions, and I guess my attitude of trying to keep an open mind about it all is what leads me to long discourses like this.... It ain't easy being human.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: akenaton Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM You are quite wrong Richard, many crimes are redeemable simply because they are based on primitive natural instincts. They are crimes under our modern laws and should be judged thus....however, certain crimes are irredeemable and against natural laws, laws a hundred times stronger than those dispensed by our courts. I have many friends, even on Mudcat and have no need of invisible(imaginary) ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: dick greenhaus Date: 11 Aug 10 - 12:34 PM I guess someone can reconcile the drowning of Pharaoh's army with "Thou shalt not kill", but I certainly can't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 11 Aug 10 - 01:01 PM MCGrath of Harlow has supplied us with some interesting lists of countries with or without the death penalty. Just one small point, The UK appears to be on the list of those still with the death penalty on the statute books but don't use it. Wrong, sorry. Just in case it crops up again... The UK does not have the death penalty at all in any way shape or form for any crime at all. it is not on the statute books. At least on this, our country can hold it's head high, Yes, we bomb civilians and would have issues complying with the debate here about "thou shall not kill" but only the Christians, and that is interesting as Blair, Brown and Cameron all claim to be Christians. Funny old world.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: mauvepink Date: 11 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM Alas, akenaton, the book on "natural laws" has been ripped up, re-written, changed and changed again by Homo sapiens, much for their own benefit at any given time in history. I firmly believe there is far more 'nature; in Mankind than Mankind wishes to acknowledge sometimes. The murder of children is not uncommon in nature, for instance, especially when they are not your own children. Infanticide is rife in many social animal communities, as is rape. I am not putting forward an argumjent here for accepting these things but I am saying that what seems unnatural often is just the opposite. We would hope that Mankind is moving away from such things and evolving ways now not to do such 'natural' acts. Bill D hits the nail on the head when he says it is not easy being human BUT, given the alternatives, I suspect it is easier for us than it is for many animal species. We probably are the only species on Earth that can presently change their future (and that of other animals) for the better. Whether we chose to do so I believe will depend on developing some of our better traits such as showing compassion and treating others (other species too) humanely and symbiotically almost. I remember in the film "Contact" the line, "You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other" How true is that? mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: akenaton Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:09 PM I don't agree MP. The predatory sexual instinct of the male is definitely natural and primitive, unfortunately in our modern society there are many men who are simply unable to keep those primitive instincts under control. However, as a man who lives in a remote area and has been close to wild and domestic animals all my life, I know that the killing of young by adult animals as anything other than a food source, is an abberation....as is any sexual activity before these young animals are at the correct stage of developement. In the case of humans, the wish to have sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent children is certainly unnatural and a serious psychiatric disorder. There are still "natural laws" which guide us in our sexual behaviour, These laws affect our arousal patterns, I'm sure we have all been disgusted by some of the cases we read in the newspapers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: mauvepink Date: 11 Aug 10 - 04:20 PM Disgust is quite natural too, when one reads such things... but beyond that I think we often should look further than the headline and before being driven by hate, revennge and the need for retribution, actually look at what really happened. We will, of course - me included - always feel a revulsion to certain things and a knee jerk "hang them high" type reaction. If we are to evolve in a humane direction we need to be able to feel more than a knee jerk driving us is what I am trying to say. Not always easy, and if something bad happened to one of my loved ones I am almost sure I would want revenge... or feel it. mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Cardinal with sense - Scotland UK From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM It's very common for newly dominant males in many species - for example lions or some primates - to kill the infants of the males they have replaced. The opposite pattern of behaviour in which the new male protects such infants also occurs, and is more commonn in other species. I don't think that arguments about whether some atrocious act is "natural" or "unnatural" is too relevant. |
