I hear that there are catcalls from everywhere in the left wing fever swamp to pull broadcast licenses. Death threats have been left on the answering machines of corporate officers, and “99 %ers” have been camped out on their lawns.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are leading the charge with their bullhorns, calling for JUSTIIIICE!!

Wait– You mean it wasn’t Fox and Rupert Murchoch that did this? You mean it was NBC that did this?

Never mind–move along…nothing to see here.

NBC Stumbles Into PC Trap | Power Line
Is NBC raaaciiist? They’re getting hammered right now for the juxtaposition of their coverage of Gabby Douglas’s gold medal in gymnastics and a network spot promoting an upcoming NBC show. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving…

74 thoughts on “OUTRAGE!!!!

  1. Cluster August 4, 2012 / 1:50 pm

    Equally outrageous is the fact that 86% of the MSM’s coverage of Romney’s overseas trip was negative:


    The MSM has literally stopped any and all objective journalism, and are now nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign. It’s outrageous, and should not be acceptable. There is no difference anymore on how the North Korean news agency reports there news and on how our MSM reports their news – and that realization is unbelievable. The other day on MSNBC, Chris Hayes (think Rachel Maddow in drag), called himself a journalist, to which my jaw dropped. He is pure and simple a political activist, and the fact that he isn’t aware of that, gives you an idea of how far our educational standards have declined. He literally thinks that he is a journalist, which by definition denotes objectivity – of which he has NONE.

    We can do so much better folks, And keep in mind, if you vote for Obama, you are voting for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Timothy Gheitner, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, etc, etc. Because that high level of incompetence comes with the package.

    Let’s see that that doesn’t happen

    • bozo August 4, 2012 / 5:41 pm

      Oh yeah. The Millionaire-Owned Media (MOM) is in the tank for Big O.

      Outrage brought to you by the MRC, that bastion of objectivity who gives you a free bumper sticker reading “I Don’t Believe The Liberal Media” if you sign up! Thaaaaat’s objective reporting! They did their own analysis, so they KNOW it’s right!


      • Cluster August 4, 2012 / 10:15 pm

        You have an unhealthy obsession with money and strong resistance to the truth. Good luck with that.

      • bozo August 5, 2012 / 8:19 am

        I must be misinformed. Help a clown out. Let me know which of the MSM networks crying out for socialism has a non-millionaire CEO, President and Chairman, and which ones have controlling shareholders worth less than seven figures.

        Perhaps I have been misled.

      • Cluster August 5, 2012 / 9:16 am

        What does money have to do with anything? If you are under the impression that the “rich” support Romney, I will remind you that some of the richest on this planet support Obama – Buffet, Soros, Immelt, Katzenberg, etc, etc.

        Again, you have a very weird obsession with money.

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 11:47 am

        Thank you, freakzo, for serving up yet another opportunity to point out the ideological ignorance of those who support the American Left.

        I don’t believe anyone has accused the heads of the Complicit Agenda Media of “wanting socialism”. What they do is exactly what you do—totally ignorant of the brutal reality of true Leftist governance, they simply react emotionally to the propaganda of that Left, and believe that what they are supporting is truly benign and compassionate and helpful to humanity, blahblahblah.

        As Bernie Goldberg has so often said, these people do not go to work in the morning saying to themselves, “How can I lie to the American people today? ” No, they are merely caught up in the emotion-based support for what they feel are the true goals and agendas of the American Left, and in the bone-deep dislike for what the Left has told them represents the Right.

        I don’t believe that our “journalists” WANT SOCIALISM. I think what they want is the warm fuzzy fantasy of “equality” and “fairness” so on fed to them by the Left, and I think they believe they are acting for the Greater Good by slanting what they write and say to the advantage of the Left.

        Look at our “journalists” of today—products of an educational system which has fed them, since kindergarten, an unceasing line of crap about how evil the United States is, what a bully we are, and how all profit is evil and achieved only on the backs of the near-slaves of the abused working class. Sixteen years of this indoctrination, assuming a degree in “journalism”, is a powerful force.

        Then look at the personality type drawn to “journalism”. It tends to be the idealistic type, seeing journalism as a higher calling. But when the people who are attracted to this higher calling approach it with an ingrained instinctive approval of the fantasy Left they have been taught to revere, with an unexamined belief in the absolute rightness of the stated agendas of the Left, they are quite naturally going to assume that the higher calling involves supporting what they have been taught is “The Good” (the Left) and opposing The Bad (the Right).

        The higher calling of rooting out the truth and presenting it no matter whose ox gets gored has been replaced, slowly and with great stealth, with the assumed higher calling of rooting out the wrongs of the Right and supporting the wonderful goals of the Left.

        They come to their jobs starry-eyed, not with the goal of digging out the truth as it is but the truth as they see it, as they have been taught to see it. They are not giddy with the promise of providing the public with the unvarnished truth but with the prospect of educating the public on what is good and what is bad. And when you were, as a third grader, told to make posters showing how awful George W Bush is, and as a high schooler told to write a paper on how badly Republicans have screwed up the country, and as a college student taught that Marx was a revered economist and that capitalism is predatory and profit evil, you emerge with a pretty clear concept of what is good and what is bad, and you have the chance to use your position as a “journalist” to continue promotion of the beliefs and ideals that have become part of who you are.

        And underneath is lies the same abject ignorance of the reality of the Left that we see here every day, in posts like yours and people like you.

        I will bet that none of these CEOs of these media outlets would be any more willing than any of you here to actually state and define and defend a political system. Titles aside, they are human beings who are just as susceptible to being ruled by emotion and just as reluctant to examine what they have come to accept as fact. And once they are in the bubble of “journalism”, surrounded by people just like them, where the popular memes of the day fed to them by the Left are recirculated like airplane air, insulated from rational examination of the Other by peer pressure and laziness and the desire to fit in with the others in the bubble rather than be ostracized and shunned by their colleagues, it is no wonder that they go along with the program.

        They are just like you, but with bigger voices.

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 11:54 am

        Cluster, remember, the Left creates categories of people and then makes judgments on the entire category.

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:40 pm

        It was quite interesting to see freakzo finally admit that supporting Obama and the American Left is “…crying out for socialism…” .

        Good call, clowny, and kudos for approaching honesty, though tentatively. I wonder how long it will last……..

  2. bozo August 4, 2012 / 6:06 pm

    I don’t get it. How is it a raaaaciist jab at Douglas if, immediately after she wins a gold medal, they play a commercial featuring George W. Bush?

    • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:07 am

      , they play a commercial featuring George W. Bush?

      Boooosh?? and all along I thought it was Ochimpy

  3. GMB August 5, 2012 / 4:45 am

    Ah yes, I can just hear the righteous howls of outrage and racism if Fox had done this. They would be coming in loud, clear, and often from every leftwing bozo out there.

    As Leo said, move along folks, nothing to see here at all.

  4. Cluster August 5, 2012 / 11:11 am

    Speaking about outrage in the media – did anyone see the interviews with David Axlerod and Robert Gibbs this morning?

    These two are completely clueless, of course they do know where their paycheck is coming from.

    • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:25 am

      Rut Ro………

      70 Facts About Our Economy Obama Probably Doesn’t Want You To See

      Almost $600,000 of your tax dollars was sent to the folks who studied chimpanzee poop-tossing.

      • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:26 am

        Yesssssss, is the GOP finally growing some balls??

        RNC Chair Reince Priebus Calls Harry Reid a ‘Dirty Liar’ for Romney Tax Claim

        “I’m not going to respond to a dirty liar.”

      • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:33 am

        I AGREE 100%

        West for VP

        Allen West Unleashed: ‘Barack Obama Is Undeserving of the Title Commander-in-Chief

        “The voting privilege extended to these Warriors who represent the best among us should not be a part of the collective vision of this inept President.”

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:44 pm

        Almost $600,000 of your tax dollars was sent to the folks who studied chimpanzee poop-tossing.

        I understand this study was really about pseudo-Lefties invading conservative blogs to mount mindless attacks on a political system and those who support it, and they were quite pleased to find a title which accurately described the phenomenon but was at the same time a little misleading.

  5. Cluster August 5, 2012 / 11:36 am

    I think the following is small example of the intellilectual quality present in liberal and conservative circles:

    This morning, Texas Seante nominee Ted Cruz has memorized And recited article 1 section 8 of the constitution – enumerated powers clause

    Last week, MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Capehart had no idea what it was.

    • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:48 am


      MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Capehart had no idea what it was.

      i gots me a culludge edumacation for $200,000.00

    • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 11:55 am

      The Clayton campaign’s Facebook page champions three major positions:

      strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, family stances that are pro-life, and keeping the country from turning into “AN ORWELLIAN SUPER STATE.”

      OOH the HORROR!!!!!!
      joe and mao must be spinning in their leftist graves…..

      • Cluster August 5, 2012 / 12:00 pm


      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:15 pm

        joe and mao, hell—-how about the entire White House staff freaking out? What a slam on THEIR ideology!

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:21 pm

        Once again we see a Democrat running as a conservative.

        Clayton is either a conservative too steeped in anti-Republican emotion to realize he is in the wrong party (a position with which I can relate as I went through the same thing during my journey from the Dark Side) or he is pulling a Lefty trick and running as a conservative because he knows he can’t run on the Leftist ideology.

  6. Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:14 pm

    1. The NBC spot was just plain stupid. I watched it a few times to see if I could figure out why they even made this silly thing, much less put it on the air. Every time I just came back to “stupid”.
    2. Why did Costas have to say that Douglas is a role model for African-American girls? There is the lead-in to racist commentary right there. Douglas is a role model for all young girls of any color or ethnicity and his determination to drag race into this was just appalling.
    3. Yes,the timing was bad. The Left, after calling Bush a chimp for more than eight years (freakzo’s comment makes it at least 11) suddenly declared that any reference to any non-human primate is racist, explaining to us that because THEY automatically think of black people when they see a monkey or an ape, all people do. Then, after working so hard to establish this link as a truly racist attitude and comment they are faced with one of their own setting up a sequence, starting with his going on and on about Douglas’ color and then playing the stupid monkey clip.

    Personally, I was deeply offended and ticked off by Costas’ commentary, and found the monkey clip just stupid, in any context.

    • neocon1 August 5, 2012 / 12:40 pm

      another Ubama buddy- racist commie dumbazz runs his lying pie hole

      Van Jones: ‘Despicable’ Republicans, Tea Party Are Intentionally Hurting Americans Economically For Political Gain

      • Amazona August 5, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        But to a communist, anything which allows people to escape the heavy hand of the State is putting them at risk.

        To a communist anything that hinders the expansion of the State and the control it has over citizens, including making them dependent on the State for income, IS “hurting” them, because to a communist the State is the only answer to any problem and the only recourse for survival for any citizen.

  7. Jeremiah August 5, 2012 / 8:20 pm

    It wasn’t until just a few years ago that I became interested in the political system, and I liked it. America voted for George W. Bush for President, and he made I believe one of the best Presidents we’ve ever had. He believe in the fundamental right that every human being deserves, that being the right to life, and liberty, he freed the country of Iraq from a dictator – Saddam Hussein. He (George W. Bush) actually brought positive change to America.

    But, at the same time, the plain and simple fact of the matter is, that even though we had a good President, who brought some positive change to America, the damage was already done to our political system when America allowed the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and government agencies to take over our educational system. Our political system relies on
    America’s youth to continue the tradition of common sense, and the trouble is, they weren’t, and haven’t been, taught common sense…but a mish-mash of communist hogwash. And is the reason we find ourselves in the shape we are in today, here in America.

    It is my belief, that until the hearts and minds of men (and women) are changed, there will be little if any aid given to society through the political establishment we have here in America. The most efficacious change will only come when The Gospel of Jesus Christ is studied and freely accepted by those in the political arena who administer political ideas and laws thereof.

    • patriotdad1 August 5, 2012 / 10:13 pm

      Yeah, a theocracy is just what America needs. Unbelievable.

      • GMB August 6, 2012 / 1:15 am

        Theocracy? Who said anything about a Theocracy? Somebody has been playing way to much Civilization.

        Theocracy by who? The katolics,Baptist, Lutherans, Calvinists,Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists,Anglicans, Episcopalians, Mennonites? I could go on forever. My own little denomination of Mennonites would never accept a katolischer overlord.

        So pd who is going to lead this bogey man of a theocracy?

        Better hope that muslims never get in charge of the United States. Then you would see a real theocracy.

    • Amazona August 6, 2012 / 12:25 am


      Good call, P-Daddy, because no one said that.

      A theocracy is government by a religion. Jeremiah talked about the gospel being “…studied and freely accepted by those in the political arena …”.

      In other words, about people accepting the teachings inherent in the gospels. There are about 1600 Christian religions and very little chance, as well as no interest, in having any one of them control our government.

      I don’t happen to agree with Jeremiah on this but I also resent your effort to make his statement appear to say what it does not say.

      • patriotdad1 August 6, 2012 / 7:55 am

        You’re obviously not familiar with Jeremiah’s previous comments calling for the death penalty for homosexuals, fornicators, medical personel involved in abortions, those who consume alcohol (yes, seriously) and a whole range of other ‘crimes’ all based on his interpretation of Christian values.

        But no, he’s not in favor of a theocracy. You can’t gloss over the extreme nature of his views.

      • GMB August 6, 2012 / 8:06 am

        Do you have a direct quote? I have never seen Jeremiah call for anything of the sort.

        Talking out of the left side of your mouth the pd.

      • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 8:07 am

        I long ago dismissed patriot dad as a thinking person, and his throw-away comment towards Jeremiah is just more proof of that. Anyone that would accuse a practicing Christian of advocating a theocracy simply doesn’t understand Christianity.

  8. GMB August 6, 2012 / 7:39 am

    Can I be the Grand Inquisitor of this new theocracy? I have a few confessions I want to extract. By force if needed.

    /sarc off, I gueß 😛

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 8:25 am


      I CONFESS………it WASNT me.

      • GMB August 6, 2012 / 8:41 am

        That is what you say now Neo. Wait until I have you in the “Confession Room” / Insert evil laughter here.


  9. Cluster August 6, 2012 / 8:29 am

    The Gospel of Jesus Christ is studied and freely accepted by those in the political arena who administer political ideas and laws thereof.

    This is the comment that has petriotdad’s panties in a wad. Sad isn’t it? How could anyone construe the teachings of Jesus to that of a theocracy?

    The other day a liberal political commentator on Obama’s reelection network, MSNBC, admitted that he had no idea what Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution was, and now another liberal, petriotdad, admits that believes the teachings of Jesus would be tantamount to a theocracy. These are the people that currently govern our country.

    Had enough yet?

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 9:10 am


      watch where you link to……I posted a link to the Blaze, showing a hate filled leftists T shirt being worn in PUBLIC at a Chick Fil A and I was threatened with permanent banning for the language on the T-shirt nad the link.

      Then post it on your own blog where there are no standards. Many things happen in public which we will not allow on this blog. //Moderator

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 9:12 am

      “The enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party.”

      It has started, the brown shirts are ironing them as we speak.

  10. goldjake1788 August 6, 2012 / 9:16 am

    someone should look at the link jeremiah just sent- that stuff is looney, nuts and paranoid. Obama keeping money away from the federal budget so that there is a civil war in october is nuts and thinking obama has the power to take over come october and stop the elections. This stuff is way beyond crazy. The link below


    • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 9:47 am

      The liberal icon Bill Maher spews out more insanity in a one half hour segment than this website ever could dream of. Anyone who subscribes to this current brand of progressivism has no standing in calling someone else crazy.

      • goldjake1788 August 6, 2012 / 11:26 am

        i dont even watch bill maher- what the hell are you talking about. To be frank this website is totally nuts. Did you read any of the articles on it. It is paranoid, psycho crap that is beyond crazy. I wonder why jeremiah sounds so paranoid and misinformed half the time

      • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 12:46 pm

        I am just saying that there are nuts on both side of the aisles – but in my opinion, that are a lot more nuts on the left side of the aisle, Maher being a very visible nut.

        I wouldn’t consider Jeremiah a nut either, maybe the website is, but I only glanced at it, and realized I didn’t need to go any further.

      • GMB August 6, 2012 / 12:58 pm

        “I wonder why jeremiah sounds so paranoid and misinformed half the time”

        Paranoid? You mean like the guy worried about a theocracy?
        Can’t get much more paranoid than that.

      • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 2:04 pm

        Paranoid? You mean like the guy worried about a theocracy? – GMB

        Dammit! Why didn’t I catch that?

        Good one.

    • Count d'Haricots August 6, 2012 / 1:47 pm

      Looney, nuts and paranoid, as opposed to the Reality Brokers of the MSM?
      1. “The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution.” — James Ridgeway, The Village Voice, Dec. 30, 2005

      2. “After September 11, we did not, for example, change from a democracy to a dictatorship, from a nation of laws to a nation in which one man endows himself with the authority to act above the law, immune to its dictates and limitations. We are not that country. We must never become that country. However, to hear President Bush, we are that country already.” — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 20, 2005.

      3. “A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001.” The Sunday Herald, Sept. 15, 2002

      4. “The president of the United States caught conspiring to create a modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine? Talk about an impeachable offense.” — David Corn, the Huffington Post

      5. “Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox ‘News’ and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree. ”
      — Former Wall Street Journal and National Reviewassistant editor Paul Craig Roberts, Jan. 30, 2006

      6. Whatever else it achieves, the presidential campaign of 2000 will be remembered as the time in American politics when the wall separating church and state began to collapse.”
      The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 30, 2000

      7. “Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, said that we should build a wall between the church and state. That wall is being deliberately and ostentatiously, not secretly, broken down. . . ”
      President Jimmy Carter, the Daily Show, Dec. 5, 2005

      • tiredoflibbs August 6, 2012 / 6:07 pm

        2. “After September 11, we did not, for example, change from a democracy to a dictatorship, from a nation of laws to a nation in which one man endows himself with the authority to act above the law, immune to its dictates and limitations. We are not that country. We must never become that country. However, to hear President Bush, we are that country already.” — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 20, 2005.

        Wow, I wonder what their opinion is of the obAMATEUR who signed several executive orders that overrides federal law? He has stated that he will do this because “Congress failed to act (in his opinion)” – granted amnesty, effectively overturning the work requirement for welfare, to name the latest.

        Somehow these sycophants won’t have the same opinion of their dear ruler.

  11. dennis August 6, 2012 / 2:54 pm

    Amazona to patriotdad: “A theocracy is government by a religion. Jeremiah talked about the gospel being …studied and freely accepted by those in the political arena. In other words, about people accepting the teachings inherent in the gospels. I don’t happen to agree with Jeremiah on this but I also resent your effort to make his statement appear to say what it does not say.”

    Amazona, the master of slicing, dicing and repurposing other people’s language, resents someone else encroaching on her turf. Or even seeming to. Duly noted. I actually agree with Jeremiah’s statement, but the problem is that he doesn’t even agree with himself.

    If Jeremiah had any coherence or consistency between his social and political views and his professed admiration for what the Gospels teach there would be no dissonance here. Unfortunately Jeremiah has a long track record of advocating things that are much more consistent with theocratic tyranny than the Christianity of the Gospels.

    Jeremiah on July 20 & 21: “if they had to suffer before they were executed while thousands of spectators paid to see them suffer and die I really believe it would make people think before they committed murder, or whatever the type of crime…. Yes, I like the Colosseum…it exemplifies God’s might, and the judgment that He metes out.”

    Leaving aside the fact that the Roman Colosseum was a venue for the slaughter of Christian martyrs as public entertainment, conflating this kind of punishment with the character of God is very close to blaphemy. “’As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live” Ezekiel 33:11.

    To suggest thousands of spectators should enjoy watching such killing so much they would pay for it as entertainment is not only offensive to Christian sensibilities, it’s pathological. The fact that these attitudes are out there representing themselves as Christianity helps explain why so many people are so revolted by religion today. There’s no difference between this mentality and the Taliban’s public executions, except that Jeremiah would also commercialize them. I suppose a true capitalist will waste no opportunity to make a buck.

    Cluster: “How could anyone construe the teachings of Jesus to that of a theocracy?”

    Jeremiah answered your question, Cluster. It happens because so few outspoken religious people honestly represent or study the teachings of Jesus for themselves. If you want to tell the genuine from the false it’s not hard at all to see the contrast. The author of the epistle of James in the New Testament is thought to have been the brother of Jesus, and this is what he said:

    “The wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” James 3:17.

    I would be very thankful to see our lawmakers manifest these traits, both in their demeanor and their policies.

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 3:30 pm


      Matthew 10:21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

      Matthew 10:35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-

      -Luke 12:52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three

      • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 3:36 pm

        Matthew 10:34
        Matthew 3:12

        Kum bayah? wolf?

        “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

        “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

    • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 4:04 pm

      Amazona, the master of slicing, dicing and repurposing other people’s language, – Dennis

      Wow. Didn’t you just the other day try and convince us that Ahmadenijad does not want to annihilate Israel? Just the Zionists?

      It happens because so few outspoken religious people honestly represent or study the teachings of Jesus for themselves. – Dennis

      Well of course Dennis, we all know that you are one of only a handful of true Christians. How do we know that? Through your un Christian like denigration of those you deem fallible.

      “The wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” James 3:17.

      Let me take a wild guess here Dennis – I suspect that you consider “full of mercy” to be equal to a large entitlement based society. Correct me if I am wrong.

      Personally, I detest nearly everyone that wears their religion on their sleeve. I find them to be small minded, arrogant, presumptuous, contemptible, and most of all sacrilegious.

      • dennis August 6, 2012 / 6:34 pm

        Cluster: “Didn’t you just the other day try and convince us that Ahmadenijad does not want to annihilate Israel? Just the Zionists?”

        No. I appealed for precision in quoting the words of others. I didn’t claim to understand what he meant or wanted, only what he said.

        The particular regime or party governing any nation is not the same thing as its land mass or its population. It’s a distinction that matters. The Soviet regime is gone, wiped off the geopolitical map – but the nation of Russia and its people remain. The Shah’s regime is gone, but Iran and Iranians remain. I think we all hope to say the same about Myanmar’s military regime.

        You and Amazona often make assertions as to what people think, what they mean or what motivates them. You rarely are content to just quote them without imposing your own subtext or assumption onto the quote somehow. In some cases deductive reasoning may justify that, but more often it doesn’t, especially the way you do it. Your premises are often flawed. Of course in the case from the other thread you were quoting the Jerusalem Post quoting Ahmadinejad, rather than going to his speech to confirm what actually was said. You also should realize that quote has been a matter of controversy for years now. http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

        “we all know that you are one of only a handful of true Christians. How do we know that? Through your un Christian like denigration of those you deem fallible.” Let me make myself clear once and for all – I’m no better than you or anyone else. I might even be a lot worse, but neither of us can know that for sure, because we’re all fallible. Some of us fact check more carefully than others, but that doesn’t make anyone a better or worse person – it just helps avoid unnecessary confusion.

        And since religion is the nexus for so much demagoguery and such a profusion of contradictory ideas, this is especially true of fact checking what Jesus taught in the Gospels, and major tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition.

    • Jeremiah August 7, 2012 / 2:12 am

      If Jeremiah had any coherence or consistency between his social and political views and his professed admiration for what the Gospels teach there would be no dissonance here. Unfortunately Jeremiah has a long track record of advocating things that are much more consistent with theocratic tyranny than the Christianity of the Gospels.

      Is the fact that I want justice for families who’ve lost loved ones to murderers the only “inconsistency” you could find between what I profess, and what the Gospels teach, Dennis? Congrats! It’s pretty disingenuous on your part to conflate my position as one that “does not agree with the Bible.” When it is more than clear that my position is more in agreement with Biblical teaching than your position, and I will prove it directly. I’m sure that you are against the death penalty for murderers, but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob actually demands the death penalty for those who take the life blood of another.

      And as to the “incoherence” of my arguments, aren’t you not well-versed in the English language? This is America, and we speak English, my friend. If you can’t understand plain English, then perhaps you should take some classes at your local elementary school.

      Leaving aside the fact that the Roman Colosseum was a venue for the slaughter of Christian martyrs as public entertainment, conflating this kind of punishment with the character of God is very close to blaphemy. “’As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live” Ezekiel 33:11

      There is a clear dividing line between those who were Christians that we martyred for their faith (and yes they were), and those who are punished for the crimes they have committed against innocent humanity. Again, I’m sure that you would let a murderer go unpunished, but this type of position (your position) only encourages more evil.

      To use the Colosseum, in my view, to punish those who murder would set an example to society that murder will not, under any circumstances be tolerated. There is definitely a deterrent effect.

      With that said, you use a hand full of verses from Scripture to fit your worldview, and to support a political system that does not at all conform to the ideals of Scripture…but is in fact, anti-Christian in every way possible.

      I’m going to quote for you the opinion of a scholar on the true, Biblical view of Capital Punishment: (It is quite a long quote)

      “C. Capital Punishment

      1. The issue

      The question with regard to capital punishment (also called the death penalty) is this:

      Should the government take the life of a person who has been convicted of certain crimes?

      The crimes for which capital punishment (or execution) is specified as the penalty usually include premeditated murder and treason. Other crimes that are sometimes thought to deserve capital punishment include an attempt to use weapons of mass destruction, espionage that results in loss of life of a country’s citizens, and crimes such as aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aircraft hijacking, or perjury that leads to a person’s death. (An aggravated crime is one where the intent or actual circumstances add significantly to the guilt of the criminal or harm to the victim.)
      But the primary question is whether governments should have the right to carry out capital punishment at all.

      2. The relevant biblical teaching

      a. Genesis 9:5-6 provides the foundation for human government

      In the early history of the human race, Genesis 6-9 relates that God brought a massive flood on the earth, destroying all human beings except the eight who were rescued in the ark: Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.
      When the flood ended, Noah and his family came out of the ark and started human society all over again. At that point God gave them instructions regarding the life they were about to begin. Among those instructions is the following passage, which provides the foundation for human government:

      And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

      “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:5-6)

      The verb “shed” in this statement translates the Hebrew verb shaphak,, which means “to pour out in large amount, causing death.” Therefore, “In this verse, ‘shedding blood’ refers to the violent, unjustified taking of human life (cf. Gen. 37:22; Num. 35:33; 1 Kings 2:31; Ezek. 22:4).” This law says that when someone murders another person, the murderer himself should be put to death: “by man shall his blood be shed” (v. 6). This execution of the murderer was not going to be carried out directly by God, but by a human agent, “by man.” Yet this was not to be seen as human vengeance, but as carrying out God’s own requirement of justice, for it explains what God means when he says, “from his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man: (v. 5).
      The reason God gives for this is the immense value of human life: “For God made man in his own image: (v. 6). To be in the image of God is the highest status and highest privilege of anything in all creation, and only human beings share in that status (See Gen. 1:27). To be in God’s image means that human beings are more like God than anything else on the earth, and it also means that human beings are God’s representatives on the earth (for they are like him, and can best represent him). Therefore, to murder a human being is to murder someone who is more like God than any other creature on the earth. The murder of another human being is therefore a kind of attack against God himself, for it is an attack against his representatives on the earth, an attack against the “image” that he has left of himself on the earth.
      In order to give just punishment for such a serious crime, God decrees that the murderer will pay the ultimate price: he will forfeit his own life as a punishment. The punishment will fit the crime: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image: (Gen. 9:6).
      This verse therefore lays the foundational principles for all human governmental authority. At the very beginning of human society after the flood destroyed the earth, God establishes that he will delegate to human beings the authority to carry out punishment on wrongdoers (:by man shall his blood be shed”). Therefore the authority to execute punishment on wrongdoing has not simply been invented by human beings on their own. Rather, it is an authority that has been delegated to human beings by God, and through this authority God carries out his righteous justice on wrongdoers, for he says this is the way in which he “will require a reckoning for the life of man” (v. 5). Therefore the authority to punish wrongdoing (presumably through some form of government that would be established) is given by God to human government. And such authority to punish wrongdoing also implies that human governments will have to decide (a) what wrongdoing is worthy of punishment, (b) what punishment is appropriate for each wrongdoing, and (c) whether or not an individual is guilty of what wrongdoing.

      As I explained in chapter 3, this passage comes long before the establishment of the nation of Israel (at the exodus from Egypt) or the giving of the laws of the Mosaic covenant (in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Therefore the application of this passage is not limited to the nation of Israel for a specific period of time, but is intended to apply to tall people, for all time. It is important to recognize that when the New Testament speaks of the “Old Covenant” (see 2 Cor. 3:14), it always refers to the covenant established through Moses with the nation of Israel. (See also Jer. 31:31-32; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 13:11; 2 Cor. 3:4-16; and Heb. 8-10). But the covenant God made with Noah after the flood is nowhere called the “Old Covenant,” and it is nowhere said to be abolished or no longer in effect. The covenant with Noah applies to all human beings on the earth, for all generations:

      “When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth” (Gen. 9:16).

      What we conclude from this passage is that God gave to human government the authority to carry out capital punishment and that this is the foundational authority of all governments of the earth.
      One objections to this understanding of Genesis 9 is to say that is is a “proverb” and not an actual command from God about how human beings should act. Glen Stassen and David Gushee say this about Genesis 9:6 “As it stands in Genesis, it does not command the death penalty but gives wise advice based on the likely consequence of your action: if you kill someone, you will end up being killed.”
      But this interpretation is not persuasive, for three reasons.
      (1)When verse 5 is connected to verse 6, it shows that execution of the murderer is the way that God himself will carry out justice in human society: God says, “from his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man (Gen. 9:5). But Stassen and Gushee say nothing about verse 5>
      (2)The last clause of verse 6 (which Stassen and Gushee also fail to mention) gives an explanation for the command. The death penalty is to be carried out for murder because man is in the image of God. This shows why the crime is so serious. But in Stassen and Gushee’s view, this reason would make no sense. They understand this “proverb” to mean, in effect, “If you do something wrong (murder), another wrong will be done to you (another murder).” But how can our creation in God’s image be a reason for wrong-doing? This is like saying (on their view that capital punishment is wrong), “People will do wrong to each other because they are made in God’s image.” That ends up saying that God’s image is the reason why people do wrong!
      (3)Later passages in the Old Testament show that God himself did institute the death penalty for the crime of murder (see Num. 35:16-34).
      Because of these three reasons, Stassen and Gushee’s interpretation is not persuasive.

      b. Romans 13:1-7 is the first of two primary New Testament passages that teach about civil government

      I have already discussed Romans 13:1-7 in some detail in chapter 3. But two specific details deserve comment at this point. Here is the passage once again:

      Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for his is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection , not only to avoid God’s wrath, but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whim respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Rom. 13:1-7).

      First, Paul says, the agent of government is “the servant of God, an avenger [Greek ekdikos, “one who carries out punishment:] who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer: (v. 4). This is consistent with the teaching of Genesis 9 that God requires a reckoning for wrongdoing and that this will be carried out through human agents.
      Second, Paul says, the civil government “does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). The Greek word for “sword” is macharia, which is used in several other verses to speak of the instrument by which people are put to death. Here are some examples:

      Acts 12:2: He killed James the brother of John with the sword.

      Acts 16:27: [The Philippian jailer] drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

      Hebrews 11:37: They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword.

      Revelation 13:10: IF anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.

      A number of verses in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament also use the word in this way, such as these:

      Deuteronomy 13:15: You shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction.

      Deuteronomy 20:13: And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword.

      Therefore the idea, suggested by some, that the sword here is simply a symbol of governmental authority is hardly persuasive. When Paul says that civil government in general is authorized to “bear the sword,” he means that it has been given authority from God to use the sword for the purpose for which people used it in the first century, and that is to put people to death.

      c. First Peter 2:13-14 is the second primary passage on civil government in the New Testament

      Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

      The expression translated “to punish” in verse 14 is eis ekdikesis, using the same word that Paul used for “vengeance” that belongs to God (Rom. 12:19) and a word from the same root that Paul uses to say that the civil government is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath” (Rom 13:4). In both Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 the New Testament teaches that government has a responsibility not only to deter crime, but also actually to bring God’s punishment to the wrongdoer. This is consistent with Genesis 9:5-6.

      d. But is it right to desire government punish a criminal?

      Sometimes Christians may think that if a loved one has been murdered, or if they themselves have been robbed or beaten or severely injured by a drunk driver, they should merely forgive the person and never seek that the wrongdoer by punished by the courts. But that is not the solution Paul gives in Romans 12:19. He does not say, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but simply forgive everyone who has done wrong to you.” Rather, he tells them to give up any desire to seek revenge themselves and instead give it over to the civil government, for after he says, “beloved, never avenge yourselves,” he says, “but leave it to the wrath of God.” Then he goes on to explain that the civil government is “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).
      In other words, people should not seek to take personal revenge when they have been wronged, but they should seek that justice be done through the workings of the civil government. Letting the civil government carry out justice frees the believer to do good even to those who have wronged him. As Paul says, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink: (ROm. 12:20). IN that way they will “Overcome evil with good” (v. 21), and that good comes not only through giving food and water but also through the justice system of the civil government, which is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).
      But, someone might object, isn’t it wrong for a Christian to desire vengeance? It depends on what kind of vengeance is desired. If we seek and desire to take personal vengeance (to harm the wrongdoer ourselves), then that is disobeying Romans 12 and 13; but if we desire that the government carry out God’s just vengeance on the wrongdoer, then we are doing exactly what Paul says in 12:19 and are leaving vengeance “to the wrath of God.” We are leaving it to the proper purpose of government, who is “the servant of God” when it “carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (13:4). It cannot be wrong for us to desire that God’s justice be carried out in this manner, for it is another way how God demonstrates the glory of his attribute of justice on the earth. (Jim Wallis fails to make this distinction between wrongful personal vengeance and a rightful desire for God’s vengeance to come through government when he opposes capital punishment, saying it “just satisfies revenge.” No, it satisfies God’s requirement of justice.)
      Therefore it does not seem to me to be wrong when Christians both (1) show personal kindness to and pray for the salvation and eternal forgiveness of those who have done them wrong, and (2) simultaneously pursue justice through the civil courts and desire that the wrongdoer be justly paid back for the wrong that he has done. IN fact, I have spoken with more than one believer who had a friend or loved one murdered, and who deeply longed for the courts to carry out punishment on the murderer. It seemed to me that this reflected a deep-seated sense of God’s justice that he has put in our human hearts and that was crying out for wrong to be punished and for justice to be done.

      Another passage that gives confirmation to this is Revelation 6:9-10:

      When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge [Greek ekdikeo, “punish, take vengeance”] our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

      The significant point about this passage is that these “souls” are now completely free from sin, and this means that there is no trace of sinful desire left in their hearts. Yet they are crying out for God to avenge their murderers, to take vengeance on those who had murdered them, “on those who dwell on the earth” (v. 10). Therefore such a desire cannot be seen as morally wrong, nor is it inconsistent with forgiving others and continually committing judgment into the hands of God, even as Jesus did when he was on the cross (see 1 Peter 2:23 and Luke 23:34). In fact, it is exactly this action of committing judgement into the hands of God that allows us to give up the desire to seek it for ourselves and that gives us freedom to continue to show acts of personal mercy to them in this life.

      e. What crimes are worthy of capital punishment?

      Are any other crimes besides murder also worthy of capital punishment? the Bible does not give us explicit directions on that question, through some principles from it can inform our reasoning process. The main question is whether other crimes are similar enough to murder in the degree of evil they involve, so that they deserve capital punishment.

      The final decision about which crimes deserve capital punishment should be made by each state or nation, ideally as the will of the people finds expression through the laws enacted by their elected representatives. (I certainly do not think this is a question that a democracy should allow to be decided by nine unelected justices on a Supreme Court, as now happens in the United States–see the discussion in chapter 5, Christopher Wright points out a significant feature of Old Testament law: “No property offense in normal legal procedure was punishable by death.” That is, people could not be put to death for stealing things, but some kind of monetary retribution had to be made instead. This seems to be a wise principle that should prevent the death penalty from evening being considered for crimes involving only property.

      However, one word of caution is in order: I do not think it right to appeal to the many kinds of crimes subject to the death penalty in the laws in the Mosaic covenant (in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) to say that those crimes should receive capital punishment today. Those laws were only intended for the people of Israel as a particular time in history. Many of those laws reflected the unique status of Israel as a people for God’s own possession who were required to worship him and not allow any hint of allegiance to other gods. There is no suggestion in the rest of the Bible that those particular uses of the death penalty in the Mosaic covenant should ever be applied by civil governments today.

      As far as Modern governments are concerned, I think that capital punishment should be the penalty for some other crimes that were intended to or actually did lead to the death of other people. Some examples might include perjury that resulted in the wrongful death of a falsely accused person, or espionage that resulted in the deaths of some of the citizens of a country.Other examples would be “crimes against the state” such as treason or plotting to use weapons of mass destruction, both of which could result in the deaths of many thousands of people. It also seems to me that a crime such as kidnapping along with brutal rape and beating of another person that did not result in death but resulted in a permanent disability to the victim could also fall into the category of a crime worthy of capital punishment. (However, the US Supreme Court took away the right of any state to decide to impose such a death penalty in Kennedy v. Louisiana, announced on June 25, 2008, a case involving the brutal rape of a child. IN that case the court also ruled out the death penalty for any crime against an individual “where the victim’s life was not taken.”)

      f. Conclusion

      God gives to civil government the right and responsibility to carry out capital punishment for certain crimes, at least for he crime of murder (which is specified in Genesis 9:6).

      3. Arguments from reason and evidence apart from the Bible

      Many private advocacy groups have advanced persuasive arguments for capital punishment based on the fact that it does in fact deter violent crime, that it can be fairly administered, that adequate safeguards can be taken to prevent innocent people from being executed, and that a widespread human sense of justice acknowledges that the crime of premeditated murder can only be adequately punished through taking the life of the murderer. Christians should not be surprised that even unbelievers have an inward sense of the requirements of justice in such a case, because the Bible says that “the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom. 2:15). This indicates that God has put in the hearts of all people a sense of right and wrong that reflects much of his moral law, and that would include also a sense of a need for justice to be carried out when a wrong has been committed.

      4. Objections

      a. Objections from the Bible

      Some writers have raised objections to the idea that I have presented here, that governments have a right and responsibility to carry out capital punishment at least for premeditated murder. They have based their objections on other passages found in the Bible.

      (1) Exodus 20:13
      Some have argued that Exodus 20:13, “You shall murder,” prohibits the death penalty. They claim that not even a government should “murder” a criminal.
      But that interpretation misunderstands the sense of the Hebrew verb ratsakh, which is here translated “murder.” This verb is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to what we would call “murder” (in a criminal sense) today (see Num. 35:20). But the word ratsach in not the ordinary word that refers to judicial execution; that is Hebrew muth, along with other expressions. Thus Numbers 35:16 says, “The murderer [ratsach] shall be put to death [muth],” using a different verb for capital punishment.
      Therefore Exodus 20:13 should not be used as an argument against capital punishment, for that is not the sense in which the original readers would have understood it. (This also means that the RSV and KJV are misleading when they translate the verse, “You shall not kill,” which could be taken by people to mean all sorts of killing, a much broader sense than what is intended by the Hebrew verb.)
      In addition, God himself commanded that the death penalty be carried out in actual laws that he gave for the Mosaic covenant (see, for example, Num. 35:16-21, 30-34). It would not be consistent to think that in Exodus 21:13 God prohibited what he commanded in Numbers 35.

      (2) Matthew 5:38-39
      This Scripture passage says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

      However, in this verse Jesus is speaking to individual persons and talking about how they should be relating to other individuals. It is similar to Romans 12:19, where Paul prohibits personal vengeance. Jesus is not talking about the responsibility of governments or telling governments how they should act with regard to the punishment of crime. We need to pay attention to the context of passages and apply them to the situations they are addressing; Matthew 5 is addressing personal conduct (see pp. 42, 82, 201-2), while Romans 13 explicitly addresses the responsibilities of governments.

      (3) Matthew 22:39
      Here Jesus says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Does this command prohibit putting a murderer to death? Is it possible to love one’s neighbor, in obedience to this command, and at the same time put him to death for murder? How can these be consistent with each other? And shouldn’t this command of Jesus take precedence over the Old Testament commands about executing the death penalty?
      But this objection, if it pits Jesus’ command against some Old Testament commands about the death penalty , clearly misunderstands the context from which Jesus took these words. Jesus is actually quoting from the Old Testament, from Leviticus 19:18, where God commanded the people, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” In that same context, God also commanded the death penalty for certain crimes (see Lev. 20:2, 10). Therefore it must have been consistent for God to command love for one’s neighbor and also command the death penalty, for example, for people who put their children to death in sacrificing to idols (see 20:2). Love for one’s neighbor does not nullify the requirement to carry out God’s justice on wrongdoers.

      (4) Matthew 26:52
      When Jesus was being arrested, Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, thinking to defend Jesus against attack. But Jesus said to him, “put your sword back into it place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
      Does this argue against the death penalty?
      This verse should not be taken as a command to people serving as agents of a government. That interpretation would fail to take account of who Peter was and what his role was at that point. Jesus was not saying that no soldiers or policemen should ever have weapons; rather, he was telling Peter not to attempt to resist those who were arresting Jesus and would lead him to crucifixion. Jesus did not want to begin a civil uprising among his followers, and he certainly did not want Peter to be killed at that time for attempting to defend and protect him.
      But it is also interesting that Peter, who had been traveling with Jesus regularly for three years, was carrying a sword! People carried swords at that time for self-defense against robbers and others who would do them harm, and Jesus apparently had not taught them that it was wrong to carry a sword for self-defense. (He seems to authorize swords for this very purpose in Luke 22:38.) In addition, Jesus did not tell Peter to give his sword away or throw it away, but, “Put your sword back into its place” (Matt. 26:52). It was apparently right for Peter to continue carrying his sword, just not to use it to prevent Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. In that context, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” must mean that those who take up the word in an attempt to do the spiritual work of advancing the kingdom of God will not succeed in that work, and if Jesus’ followers attempted to overthrow the Roman government as a means of advancing the kingdom of God at that time, they would simply fail and perish y the sword.

      (5) John 8:2-11
      The Old Testament had commanded the death penalty for the crime of adultery (see Deut. 22:23-24), but in the New Testament story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus first said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7), and then, when all the accusers had left, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more” (8:11). Does this imply that Jesus no longer wanted people to enforce the death penalty?
      There are several reasons why this passage should not be used as an argument against the death penalty. First, even if this text is used to argue against using the death penalty for adultery, which was taught in the Mosaic covenant (see Deut. 22:23-24), it is not a story about a murderer and it cannot be used to apply to the use of the death penalty for murder, which was established in God’s covenant with Noah long before the time of the covenant with Moses.
      Second, the historical context of this passage explains more about Jesus’ answer: He did not allow himself to be drawn into a trap in which he would tell the Jewish leaders to carry out the death penalty, whereas the Roman government has prohibited anyone from carrying out the death penalty except the Roman officials themselves.
      Third, the entire story is contained in John 7:53-8:11, a passage of doubtful origin, as is plain from the explanatory notes in any modern Bible translation. Although the passage is retained in many Bibles today, it is usually with double brackets or other marks showing that it almost certainly was not a part of the original manuscript of John’s gospel. Thus the authority of this text itself is doubtful.
      Therefore, on several levels the text does not provide a persuasive objection to the death penalty with respect to crimes such as murder.

      (6) “We should follow the teachings of Jesus”
      Sometimes opponents of the death penalty say that we should follow the teachings of Jesus on this matter rather than other verses in the Bible, especially some Old Testament passages. Stassen and Gushee, for example, say, “One way to study the biblical teaching on the death penalty is to begin with Jesus Christ as Lord, and with the commitment to be followers of Jesus….Then we ask first what Jesus taught on the death penalty as a response to murder.” They contrast this approach with using as the key passage “not Jesus’ teaching but Genesis 9:6.” This is similar to the objection from Gerg Boyd that I discussed in chapter 1.

      The primary biblical teaching about the responsibilities of civil government if found in passages such as Genesis 9, Romans 13, and 1 Peter 2 (see chap. 3 for other passages), but Jesus himself did not give much explicit reaching about civil government. Therefore, when someone says, “We should follow the teaching of Jesus” regarding civil government, he has ruled out most of the relevant teaching in the Bible about civil government. In another sense, however, the whole Bible comes with the authority of Jesus, and we should seek to follow all that it teaches on this topic. Finally, as explained with regard to passages from Matthew above, Stassen and Gushee incorrectly try to apply some of Jesus’ teachings to the question of the death penalty as used by governments, a subject that these teachings were not intended to address.

      (7) God spared murderers such as Cain and King David
      The final biblical argument against the death penalty is that God’s own actions show that murderers should not be put to death, because God himself spared Cain, who murdered his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8-16), and also spared the life of King David when David caused the death of Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah (see 2 Sam. 12:13).
      But this objection merely changes the subject from the responsibility of civil government to the freedom of God to pardon whomever he wishes. OF course, God can pardon some people until the day of final judgment and execute immediate judgment on others, according to his wise purposes. He is God! In other passages he executed immediate judgment that ended people’s lives, as with the fire from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-29), or the flood (Gen. 6-9), or Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:31-33), or Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2), or Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:7). The simple truth is that God can pardon whom he will until the day of final judgment, and he can carry out immediate judgment on whom he will. But he is not telling us in these passages what he wants civil governments to do! He has established that clearly in Genesis 9:5-6, in Romans 13:1-7, in 1 Peter 2:13-14, and elsewhere. Where he tells us what he wants governments to do, governments should follow those teachings.
      It is characteristic of the opponents of capital punishment that they continue to appeal to passages that do not speak explicitly about the subject of civil government, in order to use them to deny the teaching of those passages that do speak about civil government. This is hardly sound biblical interpretation.

      (8) A “who life ethic”
      Some opponents of the death penalty have said that Christians should apply a “whole life ethic,” in which they oppose all intentional taking of human life, including abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and war. (This view is sometimes called “seamless garment” argument.) Jim Wallis takes this position in his book God’s Politics. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago was an advocate of this view, stating, “The spectrum of life cuts across the issues of genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the care of the terminally ill.” People John Paul II also advocated this position in his Evangelium Vitae, writing,

      This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence.” Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. IN this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
      It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

      In response, the proper approach to decide a biblical position on a topic is t take the specific teaching of the BIble about that topic, rather than fleeing to a vague cloud of generalities (such as “whole life ethic”) that can then be used to support most any position the proponent wants. As I have argued above, the specific texts pertaining to abortion and euthanasia teach against these things, but the specific texts that pertain to capital punishment support it.
      Another argument against this “whole life ethic” view is the fact that in Ezekiel 13:19 God says, “You have profaned me among my people…,” and then he condemns both “putting to death souls who should not die and keeping alive souls who should not live” (emphasis added). (“Souls” here is used to mean “people.”) Therefore the true biblical ethic is not “protect all human life in every case,” but rather “protect the innocent and also punish the guilty, in proportion to the crime they have committed.”
      Rather than a “whole life ethic,” Christians should adopt a “whole Bible ethic” and be faithful to the teaching of the entire Bible on this subject as well as on others.

      b. Objections to the death penalty based on results and fairness
      Most arguments about capital punishment apart from the teachings of the BIble have to do with the results of using or abolishing the death penalty. Those who argue against the death penalty say that (a) it does not deter crime; (b) innocent victims might be put to death; (c) violence by government provokes more violence in society; (d) it is unfairly administered, so that the poor and some ethnic minorities are much more likely to receive the death penalty; and (e) capital punishment historically has been used in cruel and oppressive ways, even by Christians.
      In response, proponents of the death penalty argue the following:
      (1) Is the death penalty a deterrent to murder? When overall statistics are examined, there is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the number of executions of murderers and the number of murders in the United States. When the number of executions goes down, the number of murders goes up, but when executions increase, murders drop. This is seen in the following chart from two professors at Pepperdine Univeristy: (Sorry, I cannot draw the graph on the blog)

      Some studies have shown that for each murderer executed, as may as fourteen to eighteen additional murders are deterred.
      This deterrence effect has been recognized even by researchers who oppose capital punishment. “I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”

      Similarly, anti-death penalty proponents Cass Sustein of the University of Chicago and Adrian Vermeule of Harvard University wrote, “Capital punishment may well save lives.” They added, “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
      This shows the inadequacy of the arguments from authors such as Wallis, who claims it is part of a “consistent ethic of life” to be against capital punishment. My response is to say that when we support capital punishment, we show that we place the highest possible value on human life: for when life is wrongfully taken, society requires the greatest punishment, forfeiting the life of the murderer. These studies also show that Wallis is incorrect when he writes that “there is no real evidence that [capital punishment] deters murder; it just satisfies revenge.” (He quotes no data to support this.)
      In addition, there is an argument from common sense: If a criminal knows he will possibly be put to death, will he be more likely or less likely to commit murder than if he knows he cannot be put to death? He will be less likely.
      The current legal system in the United States allows appeals to drag on for a decade or more, so we have not been able to see in recent years a reliable evaluation of the deterrent effect if the death penalty were carried out more quickly when someone has clearly been determined to be guilty and reasonable appeals have been exhausted. The deterrent effect would no doubt be much greater than it is today. The Bible says, “because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of children of man is fully set to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11).
      (2)Are innocent people put to death? With regard to the possibility of innocent victims being put to death, there has been (to my knowledge) no known example of an innocent person put to death in the United States since the resumption of the death penalty in 1976. A number of innocent death-row prisoners have been released due to DNA testing, but that does not prove that any people have wrongfully been executed. Of course, the death penalty should be carried out only when guilt is established with extremely high standards of proof, but that is done in many murder convictions.
      What is the result of failing to carry out the death penalty in the case of premeditated murder? Life imprisonment is also a cruel kind of punishment and is extremely expensive. Moreover, giving a murderer life in prison or a long-term sentence may lead to his committing other murders in prison or after he escapes or is pardoned. For example, in 1981 Glen Stewart Godwin was sentenced to twenty-give years in prison for the stabbing death of a drug runner and pilot named Kim Robert Levalley. Godwin stabbed LeValley twenty-six times. He escaped from Folsom (California) Prison and fled to Mexico, where he began a new life as a drug dealer. He was arrested there and killed a member of a Mexican drug cartel while in prison. Soon afterward, he broke out of prison again and (as of 2008) has remained a refugee from justice , with $100,000 reward offered by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for information leading to his arrest.
      The fact remains that God gave the requirement for the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 at the beginning of human society after the flood, when methods of collecting evidence and the certainty of proof were far less reliable than they are today. Yet God still gave the command to fallible human beings, not requiring that they be omniscient to carry it out, but only expecting that they act responsibly and seek to avoid further injustice as they carried it out. Among the people of Israel, a failure to carry out the death penalty when God had commanded it was to “pollute the land” and “defile” it before God, for justice had not been done (see Num. 35:32-34).
      (3) Does all violence beget more violence? The idea that “violence” by government (in capital punishment) “begets more violence” is simply wrong. It is contrary to the teachings of Genesis 9:5-6, Romans 13:4, and 1 Peter 3:12-13. In fact, exactly the opposite is true: Capital punishment actually has a deterrent effect and saves many innocent lives, as several studies have shown (see discussion above).
      (4)Are there racial or economic disparities in the death penalty? If capital punishment is unfairly or disproportionately carried out among certain segments of a population, then the necessary legal steps should be taken to correct that imbalance. But that is not an argument against the death penalty in general. It is merely an argument that demonstrates that is should be carried out fairly, among rich and poor alike, and among members of every ethnic group, when crimes worthy of capital punishment have been committed. There should be no discrimination based on a person’s social status or economic class or racial background.
      (5) Has the death penalty been abused in past history? It is true that capital punishment has sometimes in history been used with horrible excess and for far lesser crimes than murder. There are tragic examples in the history of the church where people were put to death because of what the church considered to be the propagation of false doctrine. But these executions are abuses that should be be defended by anyone today; such abuses are not arguments against the rightful use of the death penalty.”

      Okay, Dennis, there it is…it’s all right there…now read it and study it.

      • dennis August 7, 2012 / 3:18 am

        Jer, I think most people generally understand crime and punishment, both in the civic and theological sense. You want the suffering and death of criminals to be paid entertainment. That’s not just unconventional, it’s sick.

      • Jeremiah August 7, 2012 / 3:26 am

        you are dismissing the point, entirely, dennis….

        the point of a crowd paying for the viewing of the death of a death row person sends a strong message to thousands of not just viewers, but to the entire country and abroad that murder is not tolerated here.

        It’s the deterrent effect that it has…so quit trying to tell me what I want or don’t want . Okay? As right now, I’m sure that the families of the Aurora shooting want justice, which they will unlikely get with our current justice system the way it is. It’s MY objective – to do something to make a change in that!

  12. goldjake1788 August 6, 2012 / 3:33 pm

    I wouldn’t consider Jeremiah a nut either, maybe the website is, but I only glanced at it, and realized I didn’t need to go any further.

    I am sorry but the stuff you link to is a reflection on you. It took you two seconds to look at that website and realize you didn’t have to go any farther. I don’t really care for maher but i think that website is pretty freakin looney which makes me think jeremiah is probably being tame on what his true beliefs are.

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 3:37 pm


      but i think that website is pretty freakin looney

      It IS when you and the other leftist Morons spew your garbage.

    • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 3:43 pm


      Ooh YEAH!!!!!
      NO looney leftist conspiracy nuts here……..

      Twitter Users Blame Michele Bachmann for Attack on Sikh Temple
      “Michele Bachmann must be so proud of her anti-Muslim sermons”.

      • neocon1 August 6, 2012 / 3:47 pm

        Sikhism is a religion that was founded 500 years ago in South Asia. With 27 million followers worldwide, it is the world’s fifth largest religion (behind Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism). According to current estimates presented by The Associated Press, there are approximately 500,000 Sikhs living in the United States, with the majority residing in India (CNN claims that this number is 700,000).

        The faith essentially ties together Bhakti Hinduism and Islamic Sufism, an interesting mix to say the least. Its founder, the first Sikh gugu and a mystic named Nanak, lived from 1469 until 1539. Unlike other faith leaders, Nanak was opposed to an organized priesthood (there are no official priests, but there are scripture readers), a caste system and rituals, among other sentiments,

    • Cluster August 6, 2012 / 3:53 pm

      I am sorry but the stuff you link to is a reflection on you – goldflake

      I didn’t link to it moron. If you’re going to criticize someone, at least have the presence of mind of knowing if the critique is valid. And that is a poor reflection on you.

  13. goldjake1788 August 6, 2012 / 9:12 pm

    i didnt say that you linked to it- i am just pointing out what a loon jeremiah is. Time and time again you defend him for these paranoid delusions because this is the stuff he reads. I did not make a personal shot at you. What garbage am i spewing? Am i saying that three gun attacks in the last year are the result of easy gun laws. That nobody should have semi-automatic weapons or guns with more than 15 bullet in it? Ok fine that makes me loony

    • neocon1 August 7, 2012 / 3:21 pm


      Ok fine that makes me loony


      now lets talk about the 180,000,000.00 LEGAL fire arm owners who SHOT NOBODY today.

      OOH NOO NOO NOO take EVERYBODY’s firearms because of 3 people.
      typical leftist.

  14. Jeremiah August 7, 2012 / 3:18 am

    And as for those chatting about the link that I posted /knowthelies.com/ …

    for the record … the point i was trying to make there, is that, IF the government (Obama) should suspend the Constitution, then it immediately goes backs to the “We the People” … for it is ours to defend and protect … remember, it’s of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    So we retain that document

  15. MickeyMack August 7, 2012 / 12:56 pm

    What is going on with this blog? I thought it was for politics and lately it is all about the bible and calling names. Not all Christians are conservatives, not all conservatives are Christians, not everybody uses teh bible to explain politics.

  16. MickeyMack August 7, 2012 / 12:58 pm

    Jeremiah your long post does not sound like you wrote it but you did not say who did isnt that plagerism?

    • Count d'Haricots August 7, 2012 / 1:44 pm

      Are you stupid or just don’t care?

      Jeremiah cited correctly; just because you didn’t bother to read is no reason to accuse someone; “’I’m going to quote for you the opinion of a scholar on the true, Biblical view of Capital Punishment: (It is quite a long quote)”

      • neocon1 August 7, 2012 / 3:18 pm


        Are you stupid or just don’t care?


      • MickeyMack August 7, 2012 / 3:38 pm

        Big answers for a little question. Would you feel better to come to my house and hit me with a rock? I just asked and yes I did miss that which is why I asked, honest mistake. I can see why you dont get new people to participate, one wrong move and you are freaking out.

      • MickeyMack August 7, 2012 / 3:44 pm

        I am a conservative and not a Christian at least not a way you would like. I dont need to go around telling everyone how christian I am and I dont like people who do or people who say you have to be Christian to be conservative.

      • neocon1 August 7, 2012 / 5:47 pm



      • MickeyMack August 7, 2012 / 5:57 pm

        OK. I see conservatives here are like radical muslims, you have to see everything exactly how they see it or you are not accepted even if you have the same identity. I see why you dont have many people writing in here. Most people wanting to talk about poltics dont want a big old bible lesson or to be attacked for a simple question. I guess my queston was too horrrible to be decent to me but the one who uses letters for the f-bomb and gets so many of his post removed he has to be warned he might be kicked off is OK.

        Weird blog.

      • Amazona August 7, 2012 / 8:43 pm

        I don’t get it either. I hardly thought your question called for calling you stupid. When I see long religious posts by Jeremiah and dennis I just skim over them if I read them at all, and I had to go back and look for the citation.

        This kind of automatic knee-jerk hostile reaction has happened before, when a new conservative voice has chimed in and said something that neo, in particular, decided was from a Liberal point of view. It is probably why so few new people join the discussions.

Comments are closed.