Tookie Williams (Page 2)

Well, John Paul II died in April, but yes he was the leader of the Church. And yes, this is the same Church in which priests, particularly in the United States although not soley, sexually abused children. And yes, it is the same Church in which bishops and others in authority moved these known molesters to other unsuspecting parishes where they continued to sexually abuse children.

This is a legitimate topic of our times, and you would have no objection from me to continue talking about it on this thread or starting another one.

What it does not prove, though, is that the teaching of the Church regarding the death penalty is wrong.  

I never said or implied that it did prove anything about the death penalty. The fact that the church has covered up and protected so many child molesters doesn’t prove that the death penalty was right or wrong, so I don’t know or understand where this statement comes from.

Your claim that you can find a way to use the Bible to justify anything you want is false in this case. First, the quote I posted was from the encyclical The Gospel of Life. The encyclical contains parts of scripture, but the conclusions do not result solely from scripture, but also from the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Well I didn’t claim that I could find something in the bible to justify ANYTHING, I said “to fit your scenario”.    Are you saying that there is NOTHING in the bible that could be interpreted as justification for taking another’s life for their actions?

Secondly, the sexual abuse crisis itself proves that your claim is wrong. You will find nothing in Church teaching that justifies the sexual abuse of children, or of anyone else for that matter.

Well again I don’t think I ever made any assertion that the church teaches or justifies sexual abuse of children, I only made mention of some of the priest who practiced it and others higher up who by their actions covered it up and in so doing not only condoned it but perpetuated it.

Has the Church lost some standing because of this, you bet. Am I angry with the men who cause this to happen, you bet, although I'm not as angry about the loss of standing as I am about the harm done to the victims.

The speed of the response from the Vatican regarding the abuse crisis in the United States is, perhaps, unprecedented in history. To read into the response that the Vatican was not concerned about the crisis, and about the harm it has done to the victims, is to simply not know the history or the workings of the Vatican.

Well here we go again, I did not say that the Vatican was not concerned. I can only say that it occurred and was covered up until financial matters made it a priority to deal with it.

To read into the response that John Paul II was somehow in a conspiracy and wanted to obfuscate the issue is simply to not know the man, and again to not know history. His response to the sexual abuse that happened in Uganda, this time among adults, is well documented. I'll be happy to find it for you if you want.

Well again, I never said he was in a conspiracy, I just asked if he was the one in charge while all this was going on.

I started this thread with two topics. One, the execution of Tookie Willams, and my opposition to it. And two, a rant about the behaviour of Catholic politicians in the United States, citing Church teaching to support my claim.

Church and Politics,,,,,,,,, I suppose I could just say enough said,,,, but the one thing that got to me the most was how you think that our politicians should check with the Vatican before they make a decision or cast a vote, now I know that’s not exactly what you said,,,,, but it’s obvious to me that you expect our politicians, especially the Catholic one’s to vote their faith. This is a democracy, our politicians are supposed to represent the people, not the Pope. Now enough said.

The issue of the separation of Church and State is also timely one, and again I have no opposition if you want to continue talking about it on this thread or if you want to start another one.

See the rant above!

If I have no standing to criticize the Governor of California, it is only because I am a resident of Pennsylvania. I have every right, however, to criticize him, or any other Catholic politician, for thumbing his nose at Catholic teaching. I also have every right to expect him to follow the teachings more closely in the future.

You are in the United States. you have the right and privilege to criticize anyone you want, GOD BLESS AMERICA. Just as I have the right when you post on a public forum advocating the Pope should rule the United States to put in my 2 cents and criticize you and correct you. The politicians are responsible to answer to the people,,, NOT the Pope.

I'll be happy to talk about the church/state issue with you until the cows come home, and I live in the city so that could be a long time. I'm also happy to take the subject of the Catholic Church in the world back to the crusades, The Holy Roman Empire, Byzantium and beyond if you or anyone else wishes.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time that a Catholic mission or crusade killed someone because of his or her faith, or more specifically because they did not want to accept the Catholic faith? 

I agree with you that this execution is a legal act, and said so earlier. It goes without saying that I share with you the hope that no more violence comes from it.

Because he is...was working hard to undue what he started. In his time in prison, he was an anti-gang advocate, and now his voice in the matter is lost. Who do you think these kids would listen to when faced with a dilemma involving joining a gang? Arnold or Tookie?

I think because he's been executed, some kids are going to make the wrong choice where before they my not have. 

You do know it costs less to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it does to execute them, right?

California spends $90 million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases (NY Times 2003).

Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988. During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions. (Miami Herald, 1988).

In Texas, it costs three times as much money to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, 1992). 

It was very easily inferred from the post I quoted.  The fact that you're feigning ignorance about it means that I'll no longer participate in this conversation.  You can continue to make tangential points and ignore the actual topic at hand all you want.

Death row inmates do NOT get this.

Feel free. Do you dispute that it costs more to execute someone than incarcerate them for life? Consider trial costs for death penalty cases v. those where the death penalty is not in play. Consider the costs for endless appeals. Consider that the average person sentenced to death spends 20+ years on death row anyway, and that it costs more to run death row than it does the general population of prisoners.

Go ahead...shoot it apart. 

Totally. They spend their lives in what amounts to solitary confinement. 

So if he set aside his religious belief, why the Bible-speak of "atonement" and "redemption" in his statement? Granted, it's just a one-sentence quote and can probably easily be taken out of context, but to me it sounds like Arnold thinks he is speaking for God.

My response was to somebody else, but a similar sentiment was involved in it.  Comparing the Crusades to the modern day Catholic church for the purpose of teaching in modern day life is one of the most fallacious arguments I've seen in quite a while.  Why not extend that further and say that you shouldn't listen to your doctor because at one time they advocated bloodletting and gave people poisons to cure them?  It could be applied to a myriad of situations, and all are equally ridiculous.  Times change, people and their understanding of the world around them change, and situations change.

Again, I agree with the sentiment of the thread, but the ripping of the Catholic church for the sake of argument is ridiculous.

Likewise, with all due respect, I don't think your position has any basis in reality.  Your last statement is not a teaching of the Catholic church, nor is it anything I've even heard of, much less promoted as anything official.  And yes, I am Catholic.

But we're getting way off the subject at hand.

So should a person convicted of rape be sentenced to be raped? Should we, like executioners, have people licensed by the state to carry out that punishment? 

Or is that barbaric, not fit for a civilized society? And if that's barbaric, why is taking a life not?