evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

No, the idea is totally morally wrong and a complete misrepresentation at least of the Protestant pro-life position. Pro-life never opposed legally justified deaths. Thou shalt not kill ALWAYS meant shall not "murder" and murder is the taking of INNOCENT life. It is just playing word games to impose any other meaning on pro-life than pro-INNOCENT life. No rational person can be against all killing for "ANY reason."

No, we are NOT to leave punishment to God. The Bible makes clear that it is the responsibility of a decent legal system to punish the guilty -- and in fact FAILURE to punish the guilty puts a nation in the wrong with God. No it wouldn't as the pro-life movement also opposes the move toward euthanasia, "mercy killing" & suicide etc.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-01-2005 02:52 PM

Are you putting forwared the argument that the death penalty is not killing? Because when I read "thou shalt not kill" I read it as "thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not kill except for the reasons that will be indexed in the back of the Bible." Maybe I'm not getting it, but you seem to think that by replacing the word "kill" with "murder" that makes it totally okay to sentance people to death?Just to clarify, I'm totally for the death penalty...but I also try not to have double standards.Brad

OK, thanks to you and Holmes for the correction.

God also tells us that we fall under the rule of government and should respect its leaders. We can start another topic on the theology of the death penalty if you wish.

---

If you live in Europe, the US has either saved your ass or kicked your ass.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Hello, Chris.Although my characterization of the US motivations during WWII were a bit simplistic, it's no more simplistic, I'm afraid, than your characterization of the US occupation of the Phillipines. Admittedly, the Japanese practiced a brutal form of imperialism, but no more brutal than the US pacification of the Phillipines during the decades after the Spanish-American War. By your logic, had a victorious Imperial Japan in 1970 put the Phillipines on a 10 year time table for independence, then all would be well, eh?At any rate, the point of my post was to counter Faith's implication that the US entered WWII and sacrificed American lives for the sole benefit of the poor European. My characterization of the US motives are no more simplistic, no more false, and a heck of a lot more believable. Whatever the US motivations were, and I admit they were undoubtably complex, it was not soley altruistic, nor soley based on self-defense or self-preservation. There was also the realization the US involvement would cement the US position as an important world power.

Of course. The term is intentionally tendentious. The term "pro-choice" was invented to whitewash abortion, to make it appear to be purely a matter of a woman's right to do as she pleases with her body instead of the absurdity that in reality the "choice" she has is between murdering her child or letting it live.The term "pro-life" was invented to ANSWER this absurdity, to point up the fact that it is a question of life or death that is involved, NOT just a woman's rights over her body, and the relevant slogan was "choose life" from Deuteronomy 30:19.

It may or may not be on topic here, but I do think it better belongs in its own topic.I suggest you start a "Pro-choice vs. Pro-life" topic in the Coffee House forum.Moose

I am putting forward the argument that this is a semantic boobytrap, that the term "kill" has to be understood in context -- sometimes it is justified, sometimes it's wrong. Other Bible translations say "murder" because of this very confusion people have who don't take it in context. Is it wrong to kill someone who is about to kill you or others? Is it wrong to kill animals to eat them? Is it wrong to kill someone in war? Obviously not all "killing" is forbidden, only murder.And this is corroborated by Jesus' paraphrase of the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19:18: No, that's very confused logic. Maybe this will straighten it out: I think that the commandment is against the criminal killing of innocent human beings, period, because there are also many kinds of literal "killing" the Bible justifies as righteous, including the death penalty -- for such crimes as killing the innocent. Well, you can be sure that the Bible does not have a double standard. This confusion is the result of not taking words in their context. Since many killings are presented as justified in the Bible there is no way "thou shalt not kill" could possibly be opposed to every kind of killing.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-01-2005 03:44 PM

No. It would mean that Japan had been imperialistic in the 1940's, but had ceased being imperialistic in the 1970's. Which is the case for the US in the PI: they had been imperialistic in the past, but by the 1930's the glory of imperialism had disappeared and the US ceased to be an imperialist power with respect to the Philipines.Discussions of neo-imperialism (which I'm kinda skeptical of, incidentally) and more complicated takes on the history of the US-PI relationship are probably not appropriate here, I agree.Chris

Wow, I didn't realize you spoke for all protestant denominations. What and amazing person you must be... Now back to reality.I grew up a protestant, I lived in a protestant dominated suburb, I went to a protestant affiliated school. I watched and went to many different protestant gatherings. There are PROTESTANTS that believe pro-life means just that PRO-LIFE and so any termination of life is wrong.I mean for god's sake faith, are you telling me the Amish and Mennonites aren't Protestant? How about the Quakers? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many many protestant groups, and some most certainly hold a more strict notion of PRO-LIFE. Perhaps the position should be called "anti-murder" then, instead of pro life. Jesus would disagree you. At least that's what several PROTESTANTS told me. Now are you disagreeing with Jesus?By the way why would it be against reason not to kill for any reason? I certainly don't agree with that position but some very sane people have. Ghandi for example? He led a successful revolution and life with that very concept.Are you calling Ghandi irrational? Weird.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If we didn't already know you were a military man, this would probably clinch the conclusion.
But seriously, what is your message here?Condesension?
Might makes right, so America is better than everyone else?
Europe still owes us something?
Europeans don't need to be taken seriously because they are all a bunch of losers?I am surprised they don't offer you a position in the Bush 'inner circle'.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-01-2005 05:03 PM

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Xians can be for the death penalty yet be against abortion.My point was more about clarifying what the problem is in calling onesself "pro-life" when one is also for the death penalty. It does seem inconsistent.In making that point I was then playing devil's advocate (or maybe God's advocate) by stating a religious argument used by some with very strict ideas about pro-life and so are against the death penalty.We don't have to start a thread on the theology of the death penalty, as I can see both sides supporting their case with scripture. If you want to have at it with other religious types on that issue, be my guest (I'll just watch).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again, holmes, you say what I want to, but you say it better.

Thanks, sorry to steal your thunder.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)