Coercion or Conversion . . . or Cluelessness?

This article (which I stumbled upon at RealClearPolitics.com) seems a clever attempt to bolster the claims of the "Religious Left" that their party (the Democrat Party) is not, despite what others (including Dem Party leaders) say, secular.

Googling the article's author provided all the context necessary for the article--actually, when the article opened by quoting Mario Cuomo on the subject of religion and public policy, I kind of had an idea where it was headed. One example which provided context: Paulson argued in a Seventh-Day Adventist journal that developing humans in the womb were no different from living things like insects in promoting "pro-choice" policy.

SO, though I think the article is poorly reasoned and grossly wrong, it was regrettably published on a reputable e-journal and I have a couple of rebuttals to his article.

First, "secularism" is more menacing (eminent?) than he is willing to admit because of its prevalence among a certain class of elitist, powerful Americans--in particular, the popular media, academia and one of the two major political parties.

Second, we Religious Conservatives want to, for example, outlaw abortion because it ends innocent human life, not simply because I am afraid that I can't convince people not to do it otherwise. Heck, EVERY law is flouted regularly--even the most universally heralded, but does that mean that we are being unspiritual or less spiritual because we don't just let the crimes continue? Given Paulson's view of life before birth, he probably just views pro-lifers as interloping busybodies. As a Christian and a citizen in a democratic republic, I believe I must promote policy that is consistent with the Golden Rule. For example, I can't blame a King or a dictator for gov't policy that seizes money from one citizen to give to another.

Lastly, he confuses grace and unaccountability when attacking the orthodox Christian principle that we are saved by grace and not by doing good things. (That's also in the Bible, Rev. Paulson). Sure, people like Bill Clinton (according to Paulson's account) may abuse the grace extended to them by God, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer "worthy" of grace (we never were) nor does it mean that there are not or should not be earthly consequences for stupid, foolish, even sinful actions we do. Only God and Bill Clinton know the true status of Bill Clinton's soul, but the fact that Clinton may claim to be a Christian and may have sinned--even repeatedly, would serve to discredit him not the doctrines of progressive sanctification or salvation by grace.

All of Paulson's fallacious logic and theological malfeasance just demonstrates that only partisan Lefties will take Paulson seriously in his critique of ostensibly "fellow" Believers.

Ken Blackwell's "'tude"

There is a great gubernatorial race taking place in Ohio--I would love to be able to cast a vote for Ken Blackwell who is the Republican nominee. Here is the final comment he made during remarks on the night of his primary victory to his Democrat opponent in November: “Message to Brother Strickland: You can run but you can’t hide. We’re coming right atcha. We represent change, we represent the future, and there is no retreat in our bones.”

As my daughter (surprisingly) commented about a fond acquaintance the other day: "he has 'tude."

If only Kerry had won . . . peace in the Mideast!

Unbelievably, John Kerry is still thinking how stupid Americans were for not agreeing with him about whom should be president. Indeed, he's claiming that the military conflict in Lebanon would not be happening if he were president. Yeah, right.

Here's a great op/ed from the Weekly Standard about Warren Christopher--who was Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration and is a prominent Liberal foreign policy "expert," and his recent pronouncements about the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Turning a page . . .

I can still remember the day that I learned to ride a bike . . . while visiting my grandmother in Georgia, a neighbor boy--the veterinarian's son, urged me to ride his bike in the soft sand of an unpaved Wilmington Island driveway. Hopefully, my daughter will always remember this day when, on a whim, we removed her training wheels and turned a page in her young life's story.

Well, she was successful on her first attempt, and you may not be able to see it in this picture, but I'd say I was more intense than she was . . . she has been ready to take this step for awhile, I think.

Lieberman's oppo gets Michael Schiavo endorsement!!

Whether or not you agree with allowing Terri Schiavo to starve to death, is anybody really supportive of her "widower" in the ordeal? Oh well, he has endorsed Ned Lamont, who is mounting a Lefty primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Whatever.

Activist judges going "inactive" . . . at least for now

Rich Lowry chronicles the positive developments in recent months on the "activist judges" front. Though the Tennessee S.Ct.'s decision to allow voters to be heard on the issue of homosexual "marriage" isn't referenced, it certainly belongs in a list of decisions reflecting judicial restraint and separation of powers. An excerpt:

The Washington decision, as well as the other important recent one in New York, rejects the argument that opposition to gay marriage is based only on rank prejudice. It says the Washington legislature was “entitled to believe” that preserving the current definition of marriage encourages a family structure that is best for children. Well, thank you very much! It is a symptom of our era of judicial fiat that it plays as some sort of far-reaching concession when a court says lawmakers are entitled to believe something that has been a bedrock belief throughout recorded human history.

Even Liberals agree: Dem leadership pandering on foreign policy

Here's an insightful op/ed by Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the notably Liberal The New Republic; an excerpt:

The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

Of course, I don't agree with all of the assertions in the essay, but I think his conclusion is pretty much accurate.

Gore in 2008!!!?

I'm wondering if Al Gore will be appearing with likely DEM senate nominee Harold Ford, Jr. on Aug. 3rd in Nashville. Doubt it. However, according to reports, Gore's stock appears to be rising among the faithful (that is, faithful to the Democrat Party, mind you).

Concerning Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, here's a great op/ed on some of the "inconvenient truths" ignored by devotees of Gore and Environmental doomsdayism.

Oh, THAT'S what you mean by "monogamous"

George Michael, who is out and proud about his homosexual activity, is rejecting criticism about his "cruising" for (and engaging in) anonymous sex in a London public park, and he claims his roommate of 10 years does not object, so their planned "wedding" is still on.

[Michael] said he and [his roommate] recently celebrated their 10th anniversary and he had given his lover a £1 million present to mark the milestone.

"We had a lovely 10th anniversary party and actually my 10th anniversary present to him cost me a million quid so I reckon I should get away with more then."

Again, why should we elevate homosexual "marriage" to a societally sanctioned institution?

Intriguing poll about Tennessee

This poll of Tennesseans commissioned by the Knoxville News Sentinel has some really encouraging data in it.

Tennesseans say their government is fair-to-middlin' in a University of Tennessee poll taken earlier this month.
In a survey of 574 residents, UT's Social Science Research Institute found that three out of four respondents graded the government in general and the state Legislature in particular as "fair" or "good." Some interesting excerpts:

Nearly half the respondents - 46 percent - described themselves as conservative, while 36 percent said they were moderate and 18 percent said they were liberal.

The poll, sponsored in part by the News Sentinel and conducted July 5-16, has a margin of error of 4.1 percent.
....
Despite the mediocre numbers, the Legislature is still more popular than TennCare.

More than half the respondents said TennCare, the state's insurance program, is performing poorly, and 42 percent supported reforms of TennCare instituted by Gov. Phil Bredesen last year. Forty-eight percent said they did not support the reforms.
....
Tennesseans remain opposed to a state income tax. When asked if they would support an income tax coupled with a rollback of the sales tax, six in 10 respondents said no. An income tax received the support of 30 percent, with 10 percent unsure.

A majority of Tennesseans - 55 percent - believes that abortion laws are "about right." By an 8 percent margin, respondents want to see Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming the legality of abortion, upheld.

Half the respondents don't believe that evolution is "a well-established scientific theory." Forty-four percent said intelligent design is "just as valid" as evolution, and three in four believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true.

Respondents overwhelmingly oppose government use of eminent domain to take private property, even if it's for a public purpose. Fifty-seven percent oppose eminent domain in all instances, even for public projects. That number leaps to 88 percent when the end use is for private development as opposed to schools or roads.

Three out of four respondents support term limits for county officials. The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in a case to decide the fate of Knox County's charter, which contains a term-limits provision.

Woohoo, is this a Red State or what?

This is an excellent time to link to the Red State theme song, Boondocks (by Little Big Town).

Excellent political ad from NC

My bloggin' colleague serr8d posted this excellent political ad from NC on his blog ("The Cutting Edge"). And check out Vernon Robinson's (the candidate's) website . . . he deserves some love from us from over the Smokies.

If guns are outlawed . . .

Here's a great report of a citizen--using a gun, who prevented a knife-wielding perpetrator from committing murder in Memphis. Kudos to Chris Cope for his courage.

Santorum lays it out on Islamofascism

Great speech delivered by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the enemy we face . . . Islamofascists.

NY Times is clueless about economics

MediaBlog over at NationalReview.com points out how clueless the NY Times is on the subject of economics. Yes, lower marginal tax rates do increase revenues "from corporations and the wealthy." I know it is hard for them to admit that Ronald Reagan might have been right about something (they still believe that Mikhail Gorbachev bravely ended the Cold War), but . . .

The Constitutional Right to Jihad

Here's Mark Steyn's insightful yet humorous (though, in a way, not so humorous, due to the seriousness of the subject) analysis of the Supreme Court's holding last week that "The Constitution contains a right to Jihad." (via RealClearPolitics.com)

DP Debate over

From: MJB
7/1/06, 5:21 pm

"[A] style that is emotionless"? Ned, you sound furious. You are not a good example of Christ, but that is an issue for another message. Excepting some allusions to other political events, I have been sticking to the issue of state killing.

You shouldn't've published my messages to you w/out my permission, Ned.


------------------------------

From: Ned (posted, but not emailed--got to stick to my word, don't I?)
7/1/06, 5:43 pm

MJB,

You obviously concluded that I had written less emotionally in an earlier email than a later one. The record speaks for itself as far as your other assertions; I definitely make mistakes and commit sins, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience tonight.

And you don't have any right to keep me from "publishing" emails that you sent to me, just as you can't control who I allow to read it. I guess it would be wise for you to include such expectations in any future emails you send to strangers about things you've already posted--under a pseudonym, on a web forum. Are you concerned about anything you've written? Certainly there is little value to hastily drafted emails. I might consider pulling them down but I don't feel guilty for posting them.

Sincerely,
Ned

**Incidentally, I have posted our entire dialogue without excluding anything, other than MJB's real name and email address.

DP Debate XII

From: Ned Williams, 7/1/06, 5:01 pm

MJB,
It would save me a lot of time if you would closely read what I'm writing, perhaps there's too much on the table to keep the arguments straight, but I'll repeat my arguments. Use of deadly force by a state is moral, in my opinion. You haven't addressed the war aspect of this issue (because, I perceive, it reveals an inconsistency in your views) but the gov't should protect its citizens from threats, of course bounded by concerns for individual liberties. So, domestic threats are thwarted by laws and enforcement of those laws. Cold-blooded murder (by an individual, not a duly organized gov't, I hope you can appreciate the distinction, as I've noted before) has been deemed such a threat that we will threaten its perpetrators with loss of their own life. Assuming that a state may appropriately use deadly force, then it may impose such a sentence. Incidentally, your assertion that most murders happen in heat of emotion or whatever is not accurate, at least not as far as the death penalty is concerned; first degree murder requires that they made a decision, absent passion, to take another's life. We do not allow individuals to do that but allow gov'ts. to do that.
Don't presume that because I may write in a style that is emotionless that I am not emotional about everything I write. I am interested to be a good example of Christ in this context, so I am willing to discourse with you on this subject, but it is a drain of time--my wife and children are much more important to me than electronically arguing with a stranger. You didn't "strike a cord" or "hit a nerve" or "hit home" or anything like that. This isn't an example of a hit dog howling, I could easily ignore you and your emails if I was feeling threatened in my world view. Rather, I resented how petty you were being (snide jabs/references to Bush/Cheney; red herring references to Iraq war; asserting that my view makes me no better than PDR or AQ; asserting as if it trumped all arguments that my arguments might be rooted in belief; "rich white men" blah blah blah, etc.); those are all fallacious arguments. You haven't backed me into an intellectual corner and I have attempted to answer every question you've posed . . . I don't think you have done the same. That, in my book, isn't honest debate.
Regarding deterrence, you're narrowly defining deterrence. There is individual and general deterrence. To deter means to 1 : turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting, 2 : INHIBIT, and I believe that having a DP deters by threat and by implementation. From the argument you stated, NO law would qualify as a deterrent, and that certainly doesn't make sense. You assert that "we're protected" because "Poor Paul Dennis Reid" is behind bars tonight, but I know there are many more people like him who have cultivated a lust for violence and power and notoriety and will act on it if not deterred. Credible laws and punishments will help to deter that. (By the way, you can take off on an argument about "cultivating a lust for violence" but I reject that all force is violence or all violence is immoral, etc.)
Again, you cannot have rule of law if we simply redefine what words meant when they were enacted based on what we--in the present, want them to mean. That may qualify as legal reasoning to you, but I flatly reject it as a fair interpretation of "cruel and unusual," as I've already stated. Like I said, you are more than welcome to try and amend the Constitution so that it prohibits capital punishment.
Sincerely,
Ned

DP Debate XI

From MJB, 7/1/06, 4:08 pm

Except, Ned, that your beliefs justify killing only in self-defense, and state killing isn’t done is self-defense, which, by your own beliefs, make state killing immoral. Further, Ned, in the same paragraph (#4), you claim that state killing is and isn’t cold-blooded.

I realize that my previous message hit you emotionally, considering how riled your response was. This message has hit home against your arguments, since you must stretch the definition of self-defense beyond the breaking point to claim that a man who is locked up for life still must be killed. Self-defense means defending yourself from attack. Sedley Alley & Paul Reid haven’t hurt anyone in years (if Alley ever did). In addition, the earlier argument that a killed criminal never kills again isn’t a deterrence argument, since it doesn’t work as an example. Worse, it would extend the state killing without bounds: A killed rapist never rapes again. A killed burglar never burgles again. A killed embezzler never embezzles again. A killed drunk driver never drives drunk again. A killed president never sends men to kill & die for oil again.

I didn’t say that state killing was wrong because almost no other country practices it. That makes it UNUSUAL. That it is irrevocable makes it CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. That makes it unconstitutional. Your intent argument doesn’t hold water, because the Constitution is a living document not fixed in the supposed “intent” of some rich White men of the late 18th century.

No one denies that a government may defend or protect its citizens. Paul Reid is in prison. We are protected. End of story.

DP Debate X

Come on MJB, I will gladly claim that I am choosing/supporting/advocating the Death Penalty. My point is that I am not going to behead you for having the opposite view of mine or for being, if you ever are, in the majority on the issue. You're wasting breath trying to emotionally scare me away from being an advocate of the DP. And, though I think you've changed your tune on this, it is arguably also on your hands, because you have stood by while an unjust, immoral, oppressive act took place.

Re. posthumous testing of Alley's DNA, it is likely that you are underestimating the cost of it or who'll pay such cost. Again, I don't believe* you care about any of that and I don't believe* it will deter you from your beliefs* if the DNA tests affirm that the victim had bled in his car. And again, we don't have to satisfy you and yours for justice to be done . . . you're unsatisfiable.

It is not true that the DP has no deterrence effect as someone (idgaf?) has stated several times, there is no recorded incident of an executed criminal killing again, and numerous examples of non-executed murderers killing again). It is commonsense that when there are 2 executions of condemned people in 50 years, despite all the tough talk from gov't officials and society, that the bark loses it's impact.

Again, my "foundation" for stating that executing Sedley Alley isn't immoral or isn't cold-blooded are my beliefs,* what is your basis for labeling it differently? (To clarify, my view of executions are that they are done in cold-blood, there's no passion involved, and the State, after "due process" certainly has the right to impose such punishment.)

It is a form of self-defense to execute those who wantonly take the lives of others. Frankly, I reject your characterization that Reid's murders were merely "bad choices" made in the "heat of emotion." Sedley Alley's actions were cold-blooded as well. And even if you say something like, "Alley (who may or may not have committed this murder) would not have been motivated to kill his rape victim if he wasn't worried about the DP!" that only establishes a) that he feared being put to death and b) that he was cold-blooded and it ignores that every DAY in America men commit murder to avoid being MERELY sent to jail . . . should we remove jail sentences because it "causes" perpetrators to kill police officers?

Lastly, like I've said in every post, it is a FALLACY to say that the DP is wrong because a majority of (good) countries' gov'ts think it is wrong or because some (bad) countries think it is okay. You wouldn't accept that reasoning on a host of issues I could list . . . as you said somewhere, "morality isn't determined by majority vote." Sure, such evidence may persuade some people, but it doesn't persuade me. You're welcome to make those arguments, but you're wasting my time making them to me. By the way, as I said (and you appear to have ignored) majorities of Europeans support the death penalty, though their "representative" gov'ts don't. And your definition of "cruel" and "unusual" as relates to the Constitution is a stretch, given that the same folks who approved those words in relation to punishment approved capital punishment elsewhere in the same document. I think it is too unstable of a basis for a democratic republic for 5 justices to be able to "interpret" words differently than they were intended when written. You guys need to go to the work of changing the Constitution the honest way, I think, if you want it to prohibit capital punishment.

I appreciate your compliment--that I'm a good person, and I would say that it is consistent with good character to think that a gov't may properly use deadly force to protect its citizens. I'm assuming you have conceded your moral equivalency arguments?

We'll "talk,"
Ned

DP Debate IX

From: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Ned Williams
Subject: Re: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions


Let's put aside, Ned, whether Sedley Alley's motion for DNA testing w/ justified or not. Shouldn't Tennessee permit DNA testing now?

MJB

-------------------------------------
From: Ned Williams
To: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions

On him? Is that even being asked for? If so, sure--assuming his next of kin approve of it and the taxpayers don't have to pay for it and it isn't unreasonably "costly" to allow it to happen.

--------------------------------
From: MJB, 7/1/06, 2:26 pm

I am glad to read it, on the evidence that he wanted tested before we killed him.

--------------------------------
From Me,

Yikes, you guys keep busy don't you? Like I said, sure, with qualifications.


--------------------------------

From: MJB, 7/1/06, 3:11 pm

Ned. Our state--representing us--doesn't want to let Sedley Alley's representatives perform the DNA tests even now. Tennessee currently demonstrates a fear of being proved wrong.
Now, I’d like to cut through all the stuff in your last message & return to the issues involving state killing. I don’t mind discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine & oppression of Palestinians & Palestinian revolutionaries’ violence toward Israelis. I don’t mind discussing Bush-Dick’s unwarranted invasion & occupation of Iraq or their illegal arrest & torture of men at Guantanomo—but one thing at a time.

Ned, if all you did were vote for candidates who want to kill, then you & I wouldn’t be in this discussion. You vociferously supported killing on the City Paper’s website. Thus, the blood is on you, too, as it’s on me, but I refuse it. I am against it. You are not.

You claim a deterrence to state killing that has been proven time & again not to exist. You claim that these delays hinder the possible deterrence, but there is no evidence that that is so. Further, most murders are performed in the heat of emotion or by people who are mentally disturbed. The VAST majority of murders are committed by people who are not making good decisions, which further deteriorates any deterrent effect of state killing. Today’s Supreme Court has cut down on what you construe as delays in our killing a helpless individual, but it, even with John Roberts & Samuel Alito, is unlikely to speed up the process any further. Without a deterrent effect by state killing, you have no reason to support it, even if you state, without foundation, that it isn’t cold-blooded & that it isn’t immoral.

Here is what we know: State killing has no deterrent effect on crime. State killing is practiced by very few nations of the world, which makes it unusual. State killing differs from all other punishments by being irrevocable, thus making it cruel AND unusual. Killing someone without the cause of self-defense makes one a killer. You & I have agreed on that. Live with it or change your mind on this. You will still be you, a good person, if you support the abolition of state killing.

MJB

Forbearing wife

For those of you wondering, yes, my wife is very forbearing and yes, I probably ought to get on to doing something productive like mowing the grass. Have a great Saturday!

DP Debate VIII

MJB,
It is about "voting for candidates who support state killing" because that is the extent that I will go to on behalf of the death penalty. Though I would be frustrated to lose this policy debate, I won't start murdering guys like "(Poor) Paul Dennis Reid" in their frogmarch outside the courthouse. I have already thoroughly discussed the "blood on hands" "argument"; that is an argument from emotion, not reason.
The whole Israel thing reflects a "white guilt" or blame-America-first view or something. I really don't understand how the actions of Palestinians (i.e., PLO) are equivalent to the acts of Israel. One is a democracy, one is not. I don't think that everything ever done by Israel was right, but it is simple NONSENSE, MJB, to equate the two "nations." Just as it is NONSENSE to equate my belief that we can as a society consent to a use of deadly force (in war or in executions). You don't see the difference between the two? It isn't wanton, it isn't bloodthirst, it isn't "unjust" (unless you flatly believe* that deadly force is unjust).
And isn't it so predictable that you hate the President ("Bush/Dick," cute) and believe* this was a war about oil? It wasn't a war about oil--was Afghanistan about oil? Will North Korea be about oil, if and when it happens? I know that you have a difficult time believing* that Bush can do anything with sincerity or without greedy or corrupt motives and I suspect that you think whatever I believe* is based in greed, insincerity, corruption or ignorance. That is where we are different. I believe* that you are sincere in your beliefs*, and there is some merit or intellectual consistency (despite your intent on demonizing the motives of those who disagree with you) but that doesn't mean your ideas are right. That is where the principle of majority rule kicks in. Sorry, but I do believe that we won't survive without fighting against Islamofascism, and it is better in my view to take the fight to them rather than endangering my family and loved ones here. I suspect you are a pacifist.
I have listed numerous differences between me and Al Qaeda and me and Paul Dennis Reid, and it is downright offensive that you continue to make those assertions. The fact that I believe that killing is sometimes justified (I think you even conceded that it was, in self defense) doesn't make me the same as Al Qaeda or "Poor Paul Dennis Reid." You don't see a difference between the DP and shooting someone in the back of the head who just showed up at work at Captain D's on a night that Reid wanted to make a quick $50? Sir, that is NONSENSE. Likewise, you don't see the difference between supporting the DP and killing 2000+ people (I'm excluding the Pentagon employees, out of utmost respect for your position) because they disagree with an international policy which attempts (at least arguably--again, out of respect for your position) to promote self-determination and democracy around the world. Yes, we have made mistakes as a country, but that doesn't mean Sharia law is cool now. In MY system, you won't be beheaded or shot in the back of the head for looking at me crossways while I rob your store or for having the nerve to stage a protest outside of a gov't facility. THIS WILL BE THE LAST EMAIL YOU RECEIVE FROM ME IF YOU CONTINUE WITH SUCH MORAL EQUIVALENCY.
MJB, I'm not going to take the time to offer you the apologetics for my religious beliefs*, because I don't discern that you are the least bit genuinely open to discussion of the issue.
Re. sovereignty and beliefs*: I discern that you believe (most of the time) that all sentient life is precious. But what about animals? What about humans who have the IQ of a dolphin or who are in a coma? What about certain plants or insects which can appear sentient at times? What separates them? I would submit that it is species-ism for you, unless you rely (believe* in) on some other basis for valuing them differently. For me, that is revelation of God (backed up by our intuition, frankly) that there is a creator and that we humans are different than all other "living" things. That "revelation" is more reliable than the Qu'ran because of a variety of things--one the historical reliability of the Resurrection; another the historical reliability of the Gospels and their chronicling of the authenticating miracles of Jesus and the Disciples. But even if all that is thrown out the window, you BELIEVE* that your view of living beings is right and I would be as justified in BELIEVING* that mine was right, so we're back to square one. YOU (I mean collectively--those of your worldview) DO NOT HAVE A CORNER ON REASON, MJB.
I agree we do not exist in isolation, but we are as generous as any other nation and we are as concerned about justice as any other nation and we are as flawed as any other nation. This might be the source of "blame America first" reflex, but I do not agree that our culture or system is worse than others'. You (collectively) seem to reject western civilization while denying that it is the direct cause of most prosperity, freedom or equality in the world. I challenge you to present another civilization which has better fruit than ours. And this is important for you to hear: I do not think it is to my/our credit that we are exceptional--it is the ideas that we have observed, experienced and embraced (some of us). America isn't "great" (I know, you probably won't agree to that conclusion) because of her natural resources or the race of her peoples or timing or being bordered by two oceans or anything other than the principles around which she is ordered.
So, what do you KNOW, Matthew? Do you KNOW that PDR is anything more than a carbon-based lifeform that stepped over our arbitrary list of dos and don'ts? Do you KNOW what constitutes "justice"? No, I don't think you do. It has been determined that it is "just" for us to not allow a convicted capital offender to seek to delay his execution or enjoy another round of legal process IF HIS CLAIMS DON'T MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. Alley didn't meet those requirements. I've said this multiple times, and I guess you think I'm just flippantly saying it, but something can be "just" even if it doesn't satisfy your opinion of what is just. Although I think that our system is exploited by disingenuous attorneys who simply oppose the death penalty, I can tolerate certain delays in administering justice (even though, too, I believe* that said legal tactics/delays detract from the deterrence value of the DP and serve to distance convicted murderer's from their guilt and play into their deluded sense of being mistreated). But I accept them because of my belief* in rule of law. But Alley didn't meet those standards, and it was not a rush to judgment, and it was not a fear of being proved wrong, and it was not cold-blooded state murder, and it was not immoral.
In sum, your position on this and the host of things you brought up (Iraq/Israel/Greedy Republicans, etc.) are rooted in YOUR personal beliefs*, too. I would argue that my beliefs* on gov't policy, at least, are more logical and based in reason than are yours, but I'm willing to listen to your side. I won't listen to statement intended to insult me and which are intellectually offensive. Why even have a discussion/debate/argument with me if you think I am so blinded by wrong motivations? I personally have too many other demands on my time to waste it in fruitless discussion, and I would hope you do too.
Thanks,
Ned Williams

DP Debate VII

Ned, this isn't about voting for candidates who support state killing. This is about supporting state killing, rather than attempting to end it. You have a legal right to support al-Qaeda & its practice of arresting & beheading, but it would be reasonable to consider you to have the blood of those victims on your hands also, whether you wielded the sword or not. Since you support killing mentally challenged Paul Reid, then, if we kill him, blood is on your hands. We are all in this together. Defending Israel's right ot exist is not the same as defending its arrest & torture & slaughter of Palestinians. As for taking over governments, who runs Iraq but the oily Republicans in the White House. This takes us off the point, however. Since you haven't denied the similarities nor come up w/ compelling differences, then the similarities between the desire of al-Qaeda to kill & the desire of some of the people of Tennessee to kill exist.

I wouldn't say that all truth claims are equal. Those who claim that the earth is flat or that natural selection is w/out scientific basis do not deserve equal time w/ those who state that the earth is round or that natural selection is proven. Comparing the Qu'ran w/ the Bible, however, those are certainly equal. Neither is a document of fact. Each is a statement of belief for a culture or belief community. Each has gone through much revision by anonymous committees attempting to establish a church.

As to national sovereignty, that is not the same as national ignorance or isolation. This is America, part of the planet Earth, one of 193 countries. We do not exist in isolation. The pretense that we do gets us into trouble. In this world of human beings, most do not practice state killing. You & the U.S.A. are in the minority. It doesn't matter, however. The goal is to help those people who still desire to kill to see that such a motivation takes us bckward, not forward.

This notion of flouting the law is just an arbitrary judgment of appeals & motions that you don't like. There is no flouting of the law here. These acts (unlike, say, Bush-Dick's at Guantanamo) are w/in the law. You cannot complain about te way others play the game if they stay w/in the rules. You insist on the rules to deny Sedley Alley a DNA test. Perhaps you'd even defend Tennessee's attempt to stop post-humous DNA testing. I'm not sure waht the basis would be, but if it's w/in the rule of law & due process, then you'd have the right to ind it just as others nave the right to demand it. There's not flouting here.

That "the majority of us believe it's time for [Reid] to be put to death" is not an argument to kill. Justice doesn't work by opinion polls.

What concerns me in your message is how many times words of belief appear. We should move past belief & stick to what we know. One of the beauties of the American legal & governmental systems is that they are secular, not beholden to any belief-system. Personal beliefs have no place here, and using them to justify a desire to kill makes you more like al-Qaeda, not less so.
MJB

DP Debate VI

MJB,
There's no competition as far as responding to messages--I presume you are getting hit with more communications than I am. But I'm really wondering if you thought that such assertions would be compelling to me. Such as your assertion that all truth claims are equal (Qu'ran v. Bible) and all "extremism" is equal (suicide bombing v. voting for candidates who support the DP) and all complaints are equal(defending Israel's right to exist v. taking over gov'ts and imposing sharia law) etc. That is a classic fallacy: because two things arguably share some similarities they are the same. I understand that people hold those views, but that simple fact is not compelling--seeing as I'm not a moral relativist.
The "majority" issue, again, is not even touching the target, MJB. First, this is America not Germany or Belgium or Tanzania. You are overwhelmingly in the minority in America. As I've asserted, I believe in national sovereignty which means it is only potentially relevant to morality/correctness that ours is the only country in the world to do something. But I can point to polling from European countries demonstrating that government policy in Europe doesn't reflect the policy preferences of the citizens of European countries. Unfortunately, it appears that democratic principles aren't practiced as much in those countries as they are in the U.S.--that's nothing to be ashamed of.
And I don't doubt that you folks are chipping away at public approval of the DP given your absolutist zeal on the subject and the near full-court press of so many in the media, academic and governmental "elite." Even I have had to stop and ponder the issue (not the morality of the DP in theory, but in American practice) a couple of times, but I always learn from digging that, as with Sedley Alley, there's no substance to the assertions--kind of like so much of what defense attorneys are "compelled" to argue (due to legal "ethics," as you suggest) on behalf of their client. Of course, whether one is flouting the law is a "living" question, you know subjective, and I believe that you and the attorneys for your side of this issue will disingenuously make ANY assertion or claim, on the flimsiest of grounds, to subvert imposition of the DP. That is "flouting" the law and you only do it because you believe your end justifies just about any means. We're all satisfied that Reid did these murders, was conscious of what he was doing and did it anyway, and has no remorse; and the majority of us believe it's time for him to be put to death . . . you won't ever be convinced or satisfied of these things, but that isn't the standard.
We'll "talk,"
Ned

DP Debate V

By: idgaf on 06-30-2006
MJB would you feel better if we called [the execution] a late term abortion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: MJB on 06-30-2006
Only, Idgaf, if we make the pregnancy twins & you're taken out, too. Just kidding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Powertee on 06-30-2006
Not funny MJB. Neither is it funny to lump together Al Qaeda, (Poor) Paul Dennis Reid and people who believe that murder warrants the penalty of death. We don't agree with you . . . you are in the minority . . . stop flouting rule of law.


emailed to me by MJB on 7/1/06, 1:39 a.m.
Powertee, Idgaf was joking, and I joked back. You should chill. Let’s look at the facts: You want to kill Paul Reid because he did something (murder) that you think warrants death. Al-Qaeda wants to kill Americans & Europeans because they have done something (supported the torture of Muslims, invaded sovereign nations, ruled over others’ lands) that al-Qaeda think warrants death. Note the similarity. Many people posting here have cited the Bible to justify their desire to kill Reid. Al-Qaeda cite the Qur’an to justify their killing of Europeans & Americans. Note the similarity.

As to minority/majority, I am in the majority: State killing is practiced by very few nations. Four countries (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, & the United States) killed 94% of all the people killed by state killing. Only ten countries killed anyone. This means that 183 of the world’s 193 countries are not practicing state killing. I’m in a majority of 95%. In terms of population, only 31% of the world’s people live in a country that practices state killing. I’m in a majority of 69%. Finally, within the U.S., in 1994, 32% of Americans suppported the sentence of life without parole over the sentence of death. In 2004, 46% support life without parole. Support for the sentence of death by itself was at 80% in 2004 & has dropped to 65% in 2004.

As to the accusation of flouting the law. No one has done that. Every appeal has been to practice every possible safeguard before this unique, cruel punishment is inflicted.

(I know that i still have another message from you to respond to.)
MJB

DP Debate IV

MJB,
I used to be an attorney in the Criminal Justice Division of the AG's office, so I am fairly familiar with the legal process in this situation. You (and those on your side of this issue--more about categories in a moment) have an unreasonable interpretation of "legal ethics" and of fair process than me or the majority of the governed. We don't have to satisfy you, a vociferous DP opponent, before executing a person; we have to satisfy the law, and Alley's claim in the 11th (relatively speaking) that he was entitled to DNA testing was not supported by the law and was nothing more than a delaying tactic, in my opinion. The statute on that issue takes into account the circumstances you have noted and Alley didn't qualify for this round of process. I haven't read the details about the Reid decision, but some determinations are transferable to subsequent venues on subsequent issues . . . whether or not Reid meets the standard of mental competence for prosecution/execution is something that has not changed by the relatively-recent mentally retarded holding. But I suspect you and I would reach different conclusions on it if there is any grey area on the matter . . .
Re. self-defense, I know you are dismissive of "deterrence" as a factor in support of the DP but that is a key aspect of self-defense. The state, in defending it's citizenry has held up a very serious punishment (actually, there are worse punishments, like torture) for taking another human life. That signals the state's intention to defend against murderers and--I believe, deters murder or serious violence against others. Also, there's no reason that we should face the risk of Reid killing a fellow inmate or a prison employee or a citizen should he somehow escape.
Re. "having blood on my hands," I think you're misinterpreting my position. Though I don't agree with your characterization of it, I am not ashamed to execute a murderer or have it done in my name. I know you don't want to discuss abortion, but you have the innocent blood and fragment of developing body parts of every abortion on your hands if your support abortion "rights." I have a LOT easier time condoning one than the other.
Re. use of the term "people from your perspective," that wasn't "personalized" it was generalized, which is necessary in a situation like this and which is merited by your various assertions over the past days. You reject national sovereignty; you equate the "violence" of execution with that of Al Qaeda and Reid; you believe that the Constitution "says" whatever a majority of people on the supreme court--regardless of legal principle, say it says; you believe that the end justifies the means in using legal methods to thwart a "state killing." Frankly, I can draw a lot of conclusions about your world view based on these various assertions, and you are free to correct me if a conclusion is inaccurate--I don't have to nor want to mischaracterize your opinion/view to effectively rebut it in the public square.
I guess I should just close by saying that I don't think the Bible mandates executions or that by executing people we will solve the problem of murder. But I do personally believe it is a legitimate policy to protect citizens and it is not contrary to Biblical principles. So I won't wail if you guys were to ever get a majority of Americans to agree with you. I am unwilling, however, to allow fallacious arguments or undisclosed premises be used to thwart my policy preference. I am a born-again Christian and believe that, while I have a duty to be concerned about my community ("my neighbor") and the things that the government does in my name--as a member of "we the people" who govern ourselves in this democratic republic, I am also to be most concerned about eternity. That gives me the perspective that I need in saying, yes, Sedley Alley is now standing before God or has already done so, and he has had to answer for his life. Hopefully, his "spiritual advisor" informed him that there was a reckoning in his future and that he ought to get right with God. There is forgiveness even for what he did and in a weird way, he had an "advantage" in not being deluded into thinking that he would have a long time or the "rest of his life" to take care of such spiritual things. So, our existence as individual beings is much more than our earthly existence. I hope that you have reconciled all this in your own mind--i.e., whether you believe it . . . whether you have acted on it . . . whether you have an appropriate confidence about what will happen to you after you pass from this life. http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawsflash.htm You are obviously passionate, committed and articulate about what you believe, and those are good qualities; nevertheless, all that can be negated if they are harnessed in pursuit of a wrong goal. Based on what I believe, execution is a just punishment for the state to carry out in response to cold-blooded murder. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.
E ya,
Ned

DP Debate III

6/29/06, 12:33 pm

Thanks, Ned, for your thoughtful reply. It demonstrates, again, that the posting forum doesn’t encourage such consideration. I wish that you would not, however, personalize with the phrase “people from your perspective”. Let’s deal with the perspective, not the people. I winced, by the way, when I saw you pick up the abortion topic and was pleased to see you let it drop. I’m happy to (at least willing to) discuss abortion, but one issue at a time.

I have not said that there is no basis for killing. I understand self-defense, either personal, societal, or national. State killing is not self-defense. The victim is already helpless & harmless, therefore killing him/her is a wanton act, under the notion of “having no just foundation or provocation.” Nothing is gained by using the power of the state against one helpless person. Over the last 30 years, we have killed 1028 people. That is almost 34 people a year, or about three per month each month for the last thirty years. Picture if, somewhere in this country, there were a public hanging or beheading or electrocuting every eleven days. Would we be seen as civilized or barbaric? just because the killings are behind closed doors & done by injections doesn’t make these helpless individuals any less dead nor make our acts any less irresponsible.

As to the legal process, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution that has permitted the number of appeals &c. that are involved in every death sentence. Certainly, a motivation for the lawyers & advocates helping the sentenced one is a loathing of state killing & a conviction that it is unconstitutional. This is a reasonable position. If Tennessee made a law criminalizing driving between the hours of 3 to 5 a.m., stating that those hours have the highest number of accidents, and that driving is not a right but a privilege, then you would want an advocate who disliked the law on your side when you were sentenced to the mandatory one year in jail. As to your contentions about poor Sedley Alley’s last appeals and poor Paul Reid’s current one, you are incorrect. There was no DNA testing when Alley was convicted. It is reasonable to use it now before the unique punishment of death is imposed. When Reid was convicted, the Supreme Court had not found it unconstitutional to kill the mentally handicapped. Now, it has. Therefore, there is reason to test the constitutionality of Reid’s death sentence, particularly since those who know him know that he is seriously disturbed. Further, the legal process is about taking every permitted advantage for your client. That’s what these advocates are doing. If you were truly concerned about legal fairness, then you, too, would want to see an end to state killing, since those killed are much more likely to have had the worst possible advocacy when it counted most, with that first bite of the apple.

No matter whether you or I do the actual injecting, Tennessee is doing it for us, and therefore, we are killers. We have blood on our hands. If killing another not in self-defense it wrong, then state killing is wrong.

MJB

DP Debate II

MJB,
I'm glad you emailed me, and I strive not to be cavalier about this issue. I certainly appreciate your right to advocate on behalf of your position, and though I disagree with your conclusions (and some of your premises, I think) I understand your position. I hope you'll attempt to understand mine.
Re. state killing: People from your perspective believe that there is never a basis for killing. I would assert that there certainly are appropriate bases; self-defense being the primary basis, and on a national/public scale, executions or war. And I don't think you're being careful about your use of the word "wanton" in response to me. I do not support "wanton" use of deadly force and the DP in Tennessee/America is clearly not an example. Which leads to my next point . . .
Re. legal process: People from your perspective/worldview believe that the Constitution requires such measures and have construed it as such. It doesn't say that you get 5 bites at the apple, as with Alley, who has not satisfied the REASONABLE guidelines for qualifying to get another round of legal process on DNA testing. It doesn't say that Reid has a right to multiple additional rounds of legal process just because some family member believes he's not mentally normal. But what is disingenuous, I believe, is for you and others to assert that you're only interested in the law being carried out. You don't want these guys to be executed and I believe you are exploiting the good faith of individual citizens and indvidual gov't officials to act as if you'll ever concede a) their guilt or b) the appropriateness of their sentence.
Re. whether or not I have the courage of my convictions on wanton destruction of human life, I am comfortable with the process though it would be difficult to actually inject the poison. Sometimes, even often, the right thing to do is very difficult. I find it difficult to discipline my children when I am not in the heat of frustration from their determined disobedience. I find it difficult to approach a friend about a conflict we've had. I, at times, find it difficult to be selfless when relating to my wife, but all of these are to be expected, I believe.
I suspect you are also Pro-choice on abortion, and I'd ask you if you are willing to stick the curretage into a woman's womb who is six months pregnant and remove the body parts of the developing human therein. I doubt it. And you can bet abortion would be much less "popular" if we had all the attention about the circumstances of an individual abortion that you guys manage to get for an execution. Most of us can watch a cool-headed murderer die without ANY remorse and I don't think the same can be said of an abortion. But I don't want this to get off track. I just want you to realize your view is based on MANY premises, some of which others--the majority, I'd say, do not agree. That's fine, but we live in a democratic republic, so there is a point at which efforts to thwart the will of the people is immoral or illegal.
In sum, I believe there will always be people who threaten civilization and peace and we need to do the sometimes difficult things in our personal lives to instill in others a respect for human life, a respect for God and a respect for the law. Based on my premises above, I think that it is thoroughly consistent to use force against my daughter while instructing her that there are inappropriate uses of force; or to teach her to respect the law and gov't while instructing her that there are inappropriate acts of gov't. I guess the trick is in discerning the difference, and that all comes back to an over-arching relationship with/understanding of God.
Thanks for writing,
Ned Williams
"PowerTee"

Death Penalty debate

As you may know, Tennessee has been buzzing with the death penalty issue for a couple of weeks as two convicted murderers were scheduled to die on the same date. As the result of some posts to the Nashville City Paper's forum, I recieved an email one evening from an anti-DP post-er and the "discussion" was on. It has been an interesting exchange, so I'm going to post the correspondence here. Frankly, I think it does not reflect well on MJB, but he is responsible for the impression he gives, not me.


6/29/06, 1:49 am
Powertee, when New Yorker writes "KILL HIM!", i'm not the one you should write to about lack of compassion. That Sedley Alley & Paul Reid killed men & women is terrible (presuming that Alley killed Suzanne Collins, which the state of Tennessee--representing you & me--was too afraid may not have been true, so it fought against DNA tests). Alley's family, Reid's family, Collins's family, & the families of the other victims have gone through terrible pain. I hope that all these families follow Father Charlie Strobel's example & join Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, where they can transcend any desire for vengeance & find healing, forgiveness, & understanding. You should attend a meeting of M.V.F.R., too.

As to the legal process: Everything done by Alley & by Reid's representation (since he's too mentally unstable to represent himself) has been part of the constitutional process put in place by the Supreme Court to safeguard those who are under the sentence of death, since it is, unlike any other legal sentence, irrevocable. These are safeguards to prevent "the wanton destruction of human life".

Unfortunately, since state killing is still nominally legal, the wanton destruction exists. I cannot tolerate it, which is the reason that i post my opinion here & in other forums, sign petitions, & attend vigils. If, instead of simply finding my picture online (not a bad photo, don't you think?), you had had the courage of your convictions & joined us at the vigil, you could've spoken against the wanton destruction of human life, and the 70 of us would have agreed w/ you.
MJB