by Firy

Created on: June 19, 2010   Last Updated: July 17, 2010

Re-examining the Death Penalty

Before I came to the United States, I was outraged to hear on the news that there was controversy about why HIV and AIDS rapists could dodge the death penalty. The response seemed to be automatic: Eye for an eye. Over time, my attitude towards the death penalty has changed. In the US, the diversity of cultures made obvious biased trends for those offered the death penalty. Advances in technology reshaped my view on the death penalty. Most importantly my belief in a supreme God and Creator seems to contradict reliance on the death penalty.

I believe God to be the creator, and hence the terminator of life. That is why I find it confusing that there are mortals who can decide to take life under the  banner of moral agency. Think about a terrorist. He or she might feel there is a moral duty to kill. But as you know, most of us do not agree. Then there is an executioner. He (are there she executioners in the US?) also feels a moral duty to kill, but some of us do not agree. Regardless of the numbers that agree, or don't agree with these groups of killers, both groups seem to have a moral obligation to kill.

A moral thing to do is something a good, kind, loving father or mother would do for his children, or that any one person would do for  the other. Yet, our interpretations of a moral terrorist and a moral executioner differ, why?

Regarding death penalty, I think that we as a society, owe it to ourselves to find out why we create circustances to which the response is death.  For an example, a former Mayor of Salt Lake, said in his press conference, "That Mr. Gardener who was executed via firing squad in Utah, yesterday, June 18, 2010 that society is responsible for how Gardener's life turned out." My interpretation of his speech is that we can subject individuals to diverse mental, psychological and physical ailments, but we cannot choose how these pressures mold their behavior including their behavior to kill.

Ultimately, mortals killing mortals while sustaining the notion of a supreme God and atonement lend that supremacy a mockery and a sham. Mortals shedding blood for atonement when the same has already been done by a Divine Being serve to bring doubt in the legitimacy of God's supremacy. Is this not like in a panel of speakers where the US President isues closing remarks and then someone in the House makes an interjection. It almost makes the audience cringe. Yes? No?

My question here is, what is the blood of a mortal when Christ has already shed blood for all of us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFJ0YVwIjOg

Learn more about this author, Firy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.