Hi!
Please consider this an amendment to the previous Pet Peeves post. Before I begin my rant, I’ll give a little background info:
In my Criminal Justice and English Composition classes, we are sometimes asked to write essays in which we use people’s testimony or in which we use interviews as a form of evidence to support our thesis. One of my most recent essays, for example, was to analyze different responses to the US Law regarding Execution as Capital Punishment (for those convicted of 1st Degree Murder with Aggravating Circumstances). I was more than happy to interview tons of people (both online and offline); I’m a very curious person when it comes to the opinion of those around me.
Every once in a while, when I would ask someone “What’s your opinion regarding Execution as a form of Capital Punishment? Is it too harsh? Is it justified?” etc., someone would start off with a “Well, if I look at it from the religious point of view, it’s not really okay, since the Bible says that only God has the right to take and give life.”
Now, there are various things that irk me about this response.
First of all, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Entire 20th Chapter of Leviticus gives parameters dictating what crimes/sins are punishable by death (note that murder is amongst them).
The very first part says: “Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him.” (Molech being sometimes used as a generic name for “false gods” or “pagan gods” from other countries.) As seen here, the very citizens of Israel were allowed, nay! REQUIRED to put the transgressor to death!
So, even the ancient Israelites were given permission (by the Almighty himself) to judge and execute any person who filled certain parameters in his crime. (With proper evidence, of course, the guidelines of which are given in this same book.)
Now, the Old Testament also speaks of a place where murderers could go to. A “place of refuge”, where murderers or those convicted of negligent manslaughter could go to or could be sentenced to. It’s sort like our time’s “life imprisonment without possibility of parole”… But even if a murderer would run to this place (say, for example, a man kills his wife, and he runs away before he is given a trial and sentenced), then the family of the victim is entitled to hunt him down, take him out of the “city of refuge” and present him to trial (I guess sort of like modern day bounty hunters? Except the family doesn’t get paid or anything, they do it because they want to see justice done). If he is found guilty and sentenced to death, the family of the victim (or the victim, in cases where murder isn’t the crime) has the right to “throw the first stone”!
Now, some may argue, “Well that’s the Old Testament, the New Testament/Greek/Christian scriptures are what matters.”
I invite those some to consider the following text: Romans 13 : 1-4, which speaks about the authorities/governments of the time, and which most religious scholars apply to modern governments. Now, I’m not saying “Listen to everything the government says, they’re always right, be blind and follow!” Of course not, I’m an advocate of questions. Always question your government, both its actions and its ideas.
But, as far as punishments dealt by the government, (police forces, the prison system, etc.), please notice especially verse 4, which reads: “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer“.
In the time of the Greek/Roman Christians, the Old Testament was used as a guideline to judge those who had committed sins. The writer of this text most likely had in mind the Hebrew Scriptures when writing this passage.
It makes sense, if one really thinks about it:
If God has set guidelines, and the government(s) in question are (to some extent, I suppose) keeping to these guidelines by protecting society from those unfit to live in it, either by execution, or by imprisonment, it would make sense to think that God approves, and would allow such an institution from continuing to protect/serve humanity. The Police Department Motto does say “to serve and to protect”.
Now, some may argue that it would be barbaric to have the community go out and stone a murderer to death. It would be a modern day lynching (for lack of a better word). Well, perhaps in society such as the one we live in (where one can get sued for looking at someone wrong >_> ) it would be somewhat barbaric for one to deal out the punishment. But, that’s why the New Testament points out that it’s the *authorities* who are the ones to deal out both judgment and punishment. The last passage mentioned goes on to talk about “giving what is due” to the authorities (tribute, taxes, respect, etc.) and more or less encouraging those who read the passage to cooperate with the Law whenever possible (as in, whenever a Law does not contradict or clash with a guideline or principle set by God through the Bible).
So, in essence, the Bible does *not* condone Execution as Capital Punishment. Rather, it condones Murder, which is what those being executed are found guilty of. The Bible encourages fair trials, and has strict guildelines about evidence necessary to find any person guilty of any crime/sin.
*deep breath*
Now, the second part of the statement that peeves me is that, when asking the person I’m interviewing whether they’re religious or not they say “Well, no, I’m atheist” or “Well, no, I’m agnostic.”
My first inner reaction is “…. Well… WTF?! Why are you giving me an opinion based on the Bible then?!”
My second inner reaction is “Oh, but maybe this person is like me and, although doesn’t practice the religion he/she grew up with, knows plenty enough about the Bible to form an opinion on it.”
So, I ask “Oh, so do you read the Bible often, or did you grow up in a religious family?” (It’s common knowledge that one will often base one’s opinions on how one grew up, or what one was taught as one grew up.)
By far the most popular response was a “lolno! I’m just trying to look at it from a different perspective than mine! *doofus smile*”
GAH! and again GAH!
I’m asking these peopel THEIR opinions!!! I’m not asking them the Pope’s opinions, or their local evangelical preacher’s opinions!!! NO NO NO NO NO! *smacks interviewees hand with ruler*
You haven’t ever studied the Bible, much less read it, and you don’t even know whether or not you believe in God. WHAT IN THE NAME OF PANCAKES MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO FORM AN OPINION BASED ON THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT!!!!
When I ask you your opinion, give me YOUR OPINION. Not the opinion you *think* a religious person might have, you DOOFUS!
*deep breath*
Excuse me readers. Unless you were one of the JACKASSES who gave me the responses that irked me so much, please disregard the insults.
But this pretty much goes for anything. If I ask an opinion of someone, and they give me what they think is a scientific opinion, without them having researched the science behind the topic, they annoy me.
If I’m interviewing someone, what I want to know is what *that person* thinks, based off of what *that person* already knows. I don’t care what that person thinks another person might say (unless it’s what I’m asking >_>).
Okay I’m done….
(Wow, that felt good >:3 )