First, it is often individuals who advocate the death penalty for their own sense of justice, in contrast to what Jesus said. If christians stopped doing that they would not violate Jesus' words or Church and State.

Second, abolishing the death penalty would not be a violation of church and state under any of the major tests used by the Supreme Court:

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose. (Abolishing the death penalty would save money and prevent the potential of killing innocent people, two secular purposes)

The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. (Because no religion claims to practice the death penalty as an expression of their religion, abolishing the death penalty would not inhibit religion. And since abolishing the death penalty is not a major stipulation of any religion and is endorsed by people of every religion, abolishing it would not promote religion.)

Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion. (Abolishing the death penalty could be done with absolutely government involvement in religion.)

The Coercion Test
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate.
The Court has defined that "Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

(The government by banning the death penalty would not be directing any formal religious exercise, so it would not do so in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.)

The Endorsement Test
Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted' over other beliefs."
(Abolishing the death penalty would not endorse religion over other beliefs because there are secular reasons to abolish it and members from every faith, plus agnostics and atheists, advocate against the death penalty.)

Info on the tests is from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm

My arguments are in parenthesis.

Finally, if abolishing the death penalty is unconstitutional because Jesus said "turn the other cheek" then banning murder would also be unconstitutional since the bible says "You shall not murder."

Nope, it doesn't kind of go back on that whole forgiveness thing. If you're talking about Jesus "nailing the law to cross" by hanging on the cross, you're wrong, forgive me for saying so. God never changes. His law still stands.

When do you expect to get justice when a wrong is done you? If someone steals from you, damages your property, wrecks your car, don't you expect some kind of compensation (justice)? How about we just forgive the offender for committing those crimes against you? The problem with your view point is that when the murderer is allowed to live, and often times much better than 2/3rds of our fellow-country men, something is wrong. A big percentage of those released from prison commit another crime almost immediately just to have their parole revoked so they can return to the life that is easier than living on "the outside".

Justice is not served when killers are allowed to continue their lives while their victim(s) is/are rotting in a grave. This actually devalues the life of the victim (which is nothing new in a society of death)...in essence says, "Your life means nothing." God said, "Whoso spills the blood of another, so shall his blood be spilled." He hasn't changed his mind. Forgiving someone who has stolen from you doesn't mean he doesn't have repay what he took. Living an expense-free life behind bars isn't punishment. But it does punish society that has to pay twice.

1. Jesus actually stopped a guilty person from being executed, so why should we believe he was in favor of the death penalty.

2. When I was a Christian, I took the bible literally-when it said this life would be filled with injustice and promised justice in heaven. So to answer your question a Christian should expect justice in heaven, not on earth.

If you're referring to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, He stopped the execution because her accusers were not operating with in the law! As I said in the other post, where was her partner in crime? He should have been as easy to nab as she if they were caught in the very act, wouldn't you think?

God is the Author of justice. It was HE Who set up our "judicial system". If not for laws, this planet would have been a complete anarchy...which is Satan's plan.

We have a choice. We can either follow God and His commandments, or we can do whatever we please and follow Satan. The reason why the whole planet isn't an anarchy yet is because there are still enough good people around to keep a fair balance. (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729–1797), Irish philosopher, statesman.)

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Have you been deceived?

Do you know anything about the Old Testament hebrew law?
They WERE within the law to kill her. The law actually TOLD THEM to kill her.

Did you realize that there is a Old Testament law which pronounces a RAPE VICTIM as guilty if she doesn't struggle hard enough?


Have you looked at the laws that the Hebrew god set up?
A law which allows a rapist to MARRY his rape victim if he pays the father a few shekels in return???

The Old Testament Hebrew god ordered genocide, murder, slavery, ...
That is not an "author of justice"...

20:13
Thou shalt not kill

It's not about US. It's about God.

Now, this is revenge, not necessarily justice. But I'll buy it if we can't execute him as God commanded us to do.

[quote=foundit66]Do you know anything about the Old Testament hebrew law?
They WERE within the law to kill her. The law actually TOLD THEM to kill her.

Did you realize that there is a Old Testament law which pronounces a RAPE VICTIM as guilty if she doesn't struggle hard enough?[quote]

I am aware of that.

I am aware of that, also.

In your most "humble" opinion. I'm sure the Old Testament Hebrew God would disagree.

Who are WE to disagree or find fault with our Creator?

Whenever I read things in the Bible that I don't understand, I always consider the fact that I am His creation and He is my Creator. Even if I can't believe it, I will accept it.

Isa 64:8
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Really?
Because your earlier statements seem to gloss over the whole issue.
The Jews that Jesus stopped WERE COMMANDED BY GOD to kill that woman.


How about in your opinion?
In your opinion, is the genocide of the Old Testament a good thing? Was it "justice"?
How about their slavery? Their misogyny?
Their rules on rape and other laws that are now viewed as archaic by modern society?


Who is the Creator to NOT be subject to being disagreed with or having fault pointed out when he's at fault?
Is a father blameless for anything he might do to his son just because he provided the sperm?


You give yourself an excuse to look the other way for the inexcusable.
You give yourself an excuse to ignore the fact that the Old Testament was written by MEN who brought their non-inspired beliefs to the book, and included their prejudices and personal motivations to the book.


Jim Jones: November 18th, 1978.
"Believe in me because I told you to. Drink the kool-aid because I told you to..."

1. If Jesus wanted to uphold the death penalty he could have easily had both executed by an innocent person. But there is no innocent person. That means that the same double standard that applies to that mob applies to you and I. But since you seem to think the OT law should still be followed, do you advocate that a woman who has premarital sex should be killed? Do you believe that a rapist should be allowed to buy his victim and make her his wife?

2. Nice rhetoric, but it lacks weight. There is no warrant to that claim and further, it is not in opposition to my previous claim.