This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
They are not in communion with Rome on that issue. As someone who went to the same school as ACB and who went to pro-life marches a person who is Catholic first would be against the death penalty. The evangelicals have always been anti-abortion pro death penalty vibes but I don’t think an intellectually honest (most people aren’t) could view life as sacred and take that view.
But I also think the old slur about a Catholic politician having to bend the knee to Rome is true. It’s what makes us undesirable POTUS to most but very desirable for the Supreme Court when Rome and a political movement have an agreement on an issue.
I don't think this means what you think it means, or anything at all for that matter. "In communion with Rome" does not in itself have very much to do with moral views and you can make the argument that Desantis and Thomas are committing heresy(which does not actually in itself take them outside of the communion of the Catholic church) because of their stances on the death penalty, but you run into the fact that the RCC is not George Lucas- it can't make arbitrary changes, and previous infallible declarations(and the literal words of the scripture) have found the death penalty at least potentially permissible. The justification for the declaration that the death penalty is inherently inadmissable is the claim that advances in penal technology have eliminated the necessity to the use of the death penalty. This is a prudential claim which can't be infallible in itself- it's perfectly possible to claim that the death penalty is necessary either because of unfixable deficiencies in the criminal justice system or due to the deterrent effect, and whether those claims happen to be right or not doesn't have very much to do with whether or not they are heresy.
More options
Context Copy link
killing babies is wrong because the babies are innocent. Executing murderers is not wrong, because they are not innocent. "If a man sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed." How is that incompatible with a view of life being sacred?
Ok fair enough. But I don’t think that works for a Christian. Jesus ate with hookers. The whole Christ narrative is that he died for our sins and his resurrection redeemed us.
Even the “worst person in the world” toddler raper can be redeemed and the sacredness of his life isn’t his deeds but that he was made in gods image.
So while I agree that your logic can work I don’t think it fits with being a Christian which most pro-life people claim some kind of Christianity. The sacredness of their life isn’t related to their deeds it’s sacred because they are human.
I’m against the death penalty. I only view it as viable to when there are no other options like someone whose killing in prison and you need to protect other inmates. Solitary is an option but some have done bad there and solitary can be a very cruel punishment perhaps worse than death.
So I can agree your logic can work but I don’t think that was Christ message and I’m labeling them evangelicals but I think they are wrong.
None of that has anything at all to do with systems of earthly justice. Salvation from sins is not a free pass from the consequences of sin here and now. Stealing and repenting of it doesn't mean you don't go to jail, and in fact the proper thing to do is to take the penalty willingly because you agree it is just.
The life they took was also sacred, and they violated that sanctity through murder. Executing them is a balancing of the scales. It's not about revenge, or anger or hatred, it's about what is just.
It's entirely Christian to reject one's own claims to justice, to forgive someone who has stolen from you, to deny that they have stolen by stating that you give what they took freely. Notably, the victims of murder cannot actually do this, and it is at least highly questionable whether others can meaningfully do it on their behalf. It is not Christian to attempt to overthrow the entire concept of earthly justice, to try to enforce this sort of forgiveness on those unwilling or unable to offer it freely.
The whole point of justice, of laws, is that it is supposed to be impartially and uniformly enforced. The whole point of Christianity is that it is a free choice by the individual, an acceptance of a gift freely offered. The two have a lot less to do with each other than people imagine.
as far as I know Jesus only comment about the death penalty was "he who is without sin cast the first stone" which seems to imply that he is opposed to the death penalty unless the person imposing it is without sin. now you could say that that is only certain in the case of adultery which was the context of that quote, but given that statement and the general emphasis on focusing on the next life rather than this one, if I had to bet, I would assume jesus would be against the death penalty for other wrongdoings as well.
More options
Context Copy link
The very point of being a Christian is you give up earthly justice. I know you wrote a lot but I feel like that is a first principle being Christian means you give up a right to earthly justice.
Also curious if you are trying to write from a different Christian view.
Is the point of being a Christian that you give up material wealth, because your treasure is in heaven, and therefore no true Christian should have a home or a bank account?
No. Having money isn't un-Christian, loving money is un-Christian. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had, give to the poor, and to follow him. He did not tell Zacchaeus to do the same, and viewed Zacchaeus making ample restitution to those he had wronged as sufficient. Annanias and Saphira were not struck down for not giving all they owned, they were struck down for lying about what they had given. Whether to sell the land was their choice, and whether to give some or all of the money was likewise a free choice, not a moral imperative.
Christians can have jobs and draw paychecks for working them. They can choose how to spend the money they earn. What they shouldn't do is treat the money as an end to itself, or think that it is there to gratify their desires. They should feed themselves, clothe themselves, house themselves to the extent that they are able, engaging in honest work and careful use of their resources to satisfy their own needs, and to build the capacity to help those around them who are in need. They should always be willing and able to walk away from their material wealth if that is what is necessary, but it is not always or even often necessary. What Christians should do with money is not reducible to a hard and fast rule, any more than their other moral commitments. Obviously they should not steal or cheat, and they should tithe, but these rules are not sufficient to capture the deeper reality of what it means to steward value in service of God.
Likewise with Justice, and law generally, and military force and a great many other things: these are part of the world that Christians are commanded to live in and to interact with, and simply abdicating all involvement and responsibility is not a general solution to the problem. There does not, in fact, appear to be a general solution to these problems, only imperfect tradeoffs. Christians should do their best to trade well, not foolishly squander what they have been given. There are circumstances when mercy is squandering what you have been given, and there are circumstances where mercy is imperative, and it is not possible for limited, flawed humans to always make the right call. All we can do is use what wisdom we have to try our best.
I don’t disagree entirely but we don’t get to take a life if we have another option. Most death penalty cases have another option.
A murderer can just be in prison. A child rapists can just be in prison. As much as we all agree they deserve death we can just remove them from society.
There is always another option. No action is ever truly forced. We can take a life if it is right to do so, and if there doesn't seem to be a better way to actually handle the problem. Putting murderers in prison isn't actually a solution, as evidenced by all the murder in prison, and the murder committed by people released from prison, or escaped from prison. It's all tradeoffs made with imperfect information, there is no obvious right answer. Executing a person for murder or for other heinous crimes is not objectionable under a Christian framework; executions for lawbreaking were ordered by God himself. What execution doesn't do is clearly fulfill Christian obligations; if our society abolishes execution completely, that might well be morally acceptable to Christians, just as abolishing slavery was. Christianity demands neither.
The window though is incredibly small for execution. It must be directly related to preventing other crimes. It can be done to prevent the murder of another.
In the specific Desantis case he’s wanted to expand it to child molesters. And while I agree that’s a horrible crime it doesn’t fit any of the Christian dogmas for when it’s acceptable to execute someone. We have the means to put them in prison for life so they won’t hurt a child. Execution is just vengeance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link