We now know that some innocent people have been executed after being convicted. It is better to imprison for life because of these inexcusable errors, and it is no more expensive in dollars. Our Bush-president sure made an ass of himself in the Carla-Fay Tucker case: How mortifying! His immaturity and lack of compassion reveals the kind of nation we are.
When casualties are reported from our occupations we only care about "our troops" though we are killing millions of innocent civilians along with accused terrorists. If that isn't meta-racism, I don't know what is! Corporate capitalism as practiced under Imperialism
could not survive without genocide. Are you ready for your murder trial? If you are not resisting and complaining you may be an accomplice in serial mass murder. Your taxes pay for it.
Somehow I believe a hot blooded crime of passion is more admirable than strapping a person to a table for terminal torture.

Until cops and prosecuters are unable to lie to fit thier own agenda, NO DEATH PENALTY.

I do not believe in the death penalty for a very simple reason. Executing a person is another word for killing. I do not beleive I should kill, and therefore, the state should not kill in my behalf. This decision is about my humanity, not the person's to be executed. I do believe that if most people who believe in the death penality were to actually get to know people on death row, many would change their minds. I agree that those who are executed are those we are willing to throw away. Our hearts are dark with bias against certain others. We allow prosecuters to mock the justice system in many trials, we minimize the frequency of innocent people being killed by the state. For all these reasons the death penality is inconsistent with a civilized society.

Faye

This post quoted Ventura County's former District Attorney, Michael D. Bradbury who wrote: "The death penalty is a necessary tool that reaffirms the sanctity of human life..." How can anybody think that killing reaffirms of the sanctity of human life?

We don't execute criminals because of what they are. We execute criminals because of what WE are. Uncivilized.

I believe we overloook that it is not the body that matters,--but the invisible person. Personal consciousness remains an enigma. Holds no physical traits. Is the life of the body,--the life of our world.
Within each invisible person,--which seems nothing more than a pure conscious energy; exist common needs of social exchange. Described in words as equality, truth, freedom, peace, love, talent and everlasting life. Satisfaction of these needs secures a feeling of justice. These words,--in likeness to personal consciousness itself;--defy academic definition; are not thoughts acquired from the physical environment; have no physical roots.
These words are the key to compatible behavior. But can't be communicated in the usual manner of physical instruction. Have been effected by a likewise intangible Golden Rule; and social guidance toward personal character maturation through prayer to a God of love.
This was the means we tediously moved away from oppressive behavior.
Not the death penalty; not punishment; not academic education alone;---but to recognize the human predator and the prey are both victims of a social arrangement failing to recognize character strength as our most prized possession; and as these traits do not reflect 'the way of the world'; we well may be in 'a world gone wrong'; and these inherent needs may reflect our likeness to the WILL of God.

Many contradictions struck me in my Catholic upbringing, ultimately resulting in my moving away from that faith some time ago. The recent years of world emphasis on one religion's being the "correct" one and the willingness to kill to defend those correct religions started me moving away from religious faith (i.e., faith in a god) altogether.

The one thing that I still appreciate about some faiths is a belief that killing another person is wrong. I sum it up for myself pretty simply: I don't believe that I have the right to take another person's life. Therefore, putting someone to death for a crime isn't my right. It's merely an application of the Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, or whatever you want to call it: I strive to behave in a way in which I would like others to behave toward me.

That's why I've never understood Christians who latch onto the Old Testament "an eye for an eye" even though, supposedly, it was superseded by the New Testament "turn the other cheek." It seems like a pretty selective reading.

When I still embraced a religious faith, I thought its greatest value was in providing an ethical framework for living. That it had the added perk of an happy afterlife for following the rules was just gravy. But I began to feel that the promise of an afterlife made for worse behavior in our world. Catholics could, on their deathbeds, make a good act of contrition for a lifetime of horrible behavior and be assured of getting to heaven eventually (they still might need to do some time in Purgatory). Those believing in the Protestant idea of predestination (which I think is the source of the Rapture theories) knew that they were either going to get to heaven or not (there was a list, apparently), and what happened on earth didn't affect that. They were still "supposed" to behave as if they had to earn their ways into heaven, but please, human nature will lean toward the easy way if at all possible. Throw the dice: If you're intended to go to heaven, then you can do what you like here on earth.

I'm not really clear on all the ways that other religions get their faithful to a happy afterlife, but a focus on the future isn't really the best way to moderate behavior in the here and now, in my opinion.

Combine an over-concern with what happens after this world with a rejection of any faith but one's own, and the result is pretty much in what we have here on earth now--killing other people because we think we have the right to do so, either out of vengeance (saving God the trouble) or to vindicate a religious faith or both.

It's really no accident that those who led the movement of the Enlightenment backed off on the strictures of religious faith. They saw the incompatibility between valuing life in its many forms and a preoccupation with a world beyond this one. I've come to see that, too.

The damage the death penalty causes affects us all. It is the executioners who suffer, and we are the executioners when our state allows this terrible deed to be performed in our name.

We have two prime examples of how this affects our history: the perpetrators of 9/11 came from a state which condones the practice and even makes it a public spectacle.

Secondly, our own George Bush is a 'leader' who himself actively participated in the hundreds of executions which took place in Texas during his governorship. His decisions have been influenced by these experiences. We see the results.

We can only begin to heal the planet when we heal ourselves of this inner complicity in bestial behavior. We do not have to do this. It is far easier to change this law than it is to reverse the damaging practises which pollute the planet; we have to do both.

I thank Bishop Tutu for his work on this subject. He would be a great person for an uptodate interview, and I think would present the case in the positive manner it deserves.

What's with the "sanctity" of human life concept (DA Bradbury's remarks and F Theberge's comments)? Why is human life "sanctified" and other lives, such as those of animals, are not? Is it from the "God created man in his own image" idea?

This is not to say that human and other life should not be treated with kindness and respect. However, if a homo sapien decides to purposely act like a monster and maliciously take the life of another, why should they be permitted to continue to exist, to take up space in a prison, eat food, breathe good air and create waste products? Swift and certain execution would provide a deterrent along with justice and some closure for the victim's loved ones.

Still, there should probably be a moratorium on the death penalty for now. I don't have enough faith in the U.S. justice system to be confident that innocent people will not be wrongly executed.

"Amy S" (and all those that agree with her) ... You state that "the death penalty is necessary". Though you give no rational or meaningful explanation to support the basis for such a claim.

Perhaps you might benefit from reading Olivia's response below (11/16/07).

We all hold beliefs we are passionate about. The question to ask one's self is what information have we been given that has lead us to hold any particular belief?

In this instance, what perspectives have influenced you to make the claim that killing a human being is "necessary" for any reason?

How is rational discourse possible in a situation when most of us (myself included) base our beliefs of such things on mostly inaccurate and incomplete data?

Yikes.

The law has come a long way from 30 years ago. I believe in the death penality because it is necessary. On the other hand i do understand that someone with money will not likely ever be on death row. We sould be sticking to a code of ethics not the code of money!

anyone who deliberately betrays the trust and innocence of children should not be suffered to live.

I don't support the death penalty as it presently, because is grossly inefficient. OpPosers don't realize that many of these people live in solitary confinement waiting for the next opportunity to kill a prison guard or a fellow inmate. They are rarely victims, but rather repeat offenders. It is merciful to prevent the family and victim from being harmed.

If there is overwhelming evidence, DNA, video tape, etc., convict, sentence and carry it out!

Maybe there sentences should be carried out in the manner the victim was murdered. Because bludgeoning, shooting, raping, stabbing are not all that cruel or unusual...at least for the perpetrator????

I believe there are some people in the world who are not capable of living in the world with others'.
Top on my list are those that hurt animals or children.

But I do not believe in the death penalty.

The old adage is that two wrongs do not make a right and I think that fits here.

It is patently illogical to state that killing is wrong, and then to make a law that says if you kill, we will kill you.

That's the philosophically opposed argument. The second argument, equally as forceful, is that there is not one institutional activity society engages in that is ever performed/effected correctly.

As soon as we "legislate" an activity-it goes awry. There's just something about bureaucracy that destroys the original intent and functionality of purpose.

Gambling with lives is too critical a question to leave to a system that is flawed from the start.

I wonder, why in these interviews and why in this dialogue is there not a clear voice of reason?

At its essence, we are disingenuous if we first do not discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the world views of a person who either supports capital punishment or denounces it.

When I speak of "world view" I refer to the belief system that a person has come to appropriate in their understanding of the universe, our planet, and their complex position and relationship to that which is exterior to their own mind and being.

It is a person's beliefs that ultimately dictate their action or inaction in this world. Logically, it is a person's beliefs that then shape their world view.

At it's essence, a person's 'world view' seems to stem from two primary camps: that of a 'faith/religious' based interpretation of the world and that of a 'reality' based interpretation of the world.

In the former, a person relies on the irrationality of faith based information (that which cannot be readily observed, proved, or disproved here in this world) derived mostly from ancient scriptures written by Humans in a time of great intellectual ignorance. At the times these texts were written - humans, by and large, believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, that disease and sickness were caused by heretics, and that droughts were the result of un-pious activities (to name a few).

In the latter world view (reality), a person relies on rational thought and observation to determine their belief system for how the world works and the complex interrelations between living beings and the functioning systems on our planet and in the universe.

Through this rational means for understanding the world, we now know, beyond any doubt, that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, is not the center of the universe and is indeed round, diseases are really caused by germs/pathogens (germ theory was not established until the mid 1800s), and that droughts and climatic shifts are the result of a very complex inter-relationship between atmospheric concentrations of certain gases, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, cosmic activity, ecosystem bio-diversity, etc ...

The world around, we experience everyday grotesque acts of violence, killing, hatred, destruction - so much of which is the result of human action.

An overwhelming majority of these actions have their roots in a belief system that is both irrational and faith based. Whether it is called Islamic, Christian, Judaic, Pagan, Hindu, etc ... They are all irrational means for formulating the beliefs that dictate a person's action in the world.

The point here then, is indeed a question:

How much longer can the human species endure when a majority of our violence, killing, war, capital punishment etc ... are, at their essence, actions in the world derived from world views and beliefs based in irrational, faith based understandings of the world?

Is irrational faith itself not the root of most human violence?

I find the OP-ED blurb from the former DA very dishonest and insulting to the intelligence. Since when one has the right to invoke the " sanctity of human life" and in the same sentence support the killing of a human being?

Pray inform me, since when sanctity has been reduced to a cafeteria-style menu of choices about what or who has more intrinsic sanctity than others?

A cursory look at the definition of sanctity: "The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability."

If one invoke sanctity of human life, there is NO choice: No human life cannot can be taken out. The ONLY acceptable exception (IMO) would be clear, objective, immediate and present danger to self or others.

I don't understand how a sane person can support a murder of another human being.

I find it very interesting that Texas leads the other states, by far, in numbers of executions. It is also interesting that during the years when Pres. George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, the number of executions increased to a record high. The quality of our involvement in Iraq is a natural product of this 'Texas Ranger mentality' of good guys vs. bad guys. Thomas Cahill eloquently described the tides of civilization as moving, by trial & error, beyond taking a life for a life. By that definition, the U.S. is swimming against the tide of civilization.

"I will say that having the correct understanding of God's word the Bible, explains not only "what" is going on in the world, but more importantly, why and what the future holds for mankind. With just a secular understanding of the world, in my opinion, ones understanding of what is going on in the world and why, are limited."
The words of men who didn't have the education of a 3rd grader of today cannot tell us anything about our future, our past or our understanding of the world. Your understanding is limited when you apply 2,000 year old superstition to any question.

A few key points.
1) No one who opposes the death penalty is without sympathy for victims or their families so when people say "remember the victims" as if they are being forgotten, they are using a misguided argument. The debate is with regard to the punishment that people convicted of capital crimes face.
2) A common argument put forward to defend the death penalty (particularly in bloodthirsty Texas) is that it is a deterrent to violent crime. Well, after all of these executions, shouldn't we be seeing a decrease in murders? We're not and that's because the argument is flawed.
3) Execution fulfills a backward desire for "justice" in the form of revenge. I don't know how I would feel if someone close to me was murdered but I do know that having their murderer executed would not bring them back.

I have worked in various prisons over the past 9 years. I facilitate a program called Alternatives to Violence Project.
The AVP workshops I do are about communication, empathy, collaboration and reaching within for the power that is with us all to stand up for what we want in our lives and to stand against what we don't want in our lives.
We talk about transforming power which is that strength within us, you may call it God or you may call it the truth, that can sometimes supercede the abuse, the anger, the pain and suffering and years of misguided lessons and find a new path that returns love when someone comes to you with hate. That returns understanding when someone comes to you with anger.
I am told often by the men and women I have shared the program with... If we had only had this in grade school or high school, we just might not be here.

And I wonder myself, if all of a sudden we saw the complicated human relationships we all take for granted as the most important thing our children would learn and placed their teaching as more important to learn beyond all else... well I just wonder at the world that might be possible.

The golden rule requires empathy. Imagine if you were falsely convicted of murder: What kind of legal and penal system would you prefer in that case? We can't make the theology we want but only believeany number of improbable and childish things. I hope if there is a Creator and an afterlife I am given a chance for meaningful work in a just society: That which I have been denied here.

Thanks for another thought provoking programme. I am surely thankful for grace and mercy...perhaps this is worth alot in light of our human condition.

To Lisa Shapiro

Unfortunately Lisa the Isrealites did sacrafice their sons and daughters to Ba'al. Psalms 106: 35-41

To Paul Andersen

First, please forgive the misspelling of your name, my error.

Second, your right, you never identified yourself as a secularist. I made the same mistake you made of me, when you assumed that I was "of the mistaken belief that you have to be a Christian to be opposed to the death penalty".

Thirdly, my claim toward Mr. Cahill and Mr. Tutu, again, who claim to be knowledgeable on biblical and other theological matters, was based on and supported by the bible. ( And yes, I'm well aware that people have different interpretations of the bible and it's one truth. And that's a whole other discussion.)

Having said that, I will say that having the correct understanding of God's word the Bible, explains not only "what" is going on in the world, but more importantly, why and what the future holds for mankind. With just a secular understanding of the world, in my opinion, ones understanding of what is going on in the world and why, are limited.

And to Muhammed Halim

The Catholic/Protestant conflict is not a theological struggle as you say, but also, a political one. Its a fight for control as well.

This is because, the Catholic/Protestant conflict does not reflect Christian theology or Christian unity, but rather religious apostasy.

God's Son, who was and is the "Christ" and "Messiah" said "his" disciples or followers would be recognized by the love they had between them, as well as, all of mankind. (John 13:34,35 and Matthew 5:34)

The Catholic/Protestant conflict reflects the same struggles as that of the rest this world and it's false religions which are alienated from God and His Sovereignty, but rather are "under the power if the wicked one" and reflect that one's personility by their deeds. (1John 5:19)

With all due respect to Mr. Cahill, I was offended by his well-meaning remark about the Jews on the recent show. He stated that "the Jews had been sacrificing their children as illustrated in Genesis, and Abraham 'finally' put a stop to it as portrayed in the Isaac story." No. There were no Jews before Abraham. According to the Old Testament, Abraham was the father of the Jewish people, the first person to conceive of the One God, and to hear the voice of God. Those people who sacrified their children were not Jews, for Jews only began as a people with Abraham. This idea, spouted by Cahill on TV, condoned by Bill Moyers, and disseminated on DVD, that Abraham "finally put a stop to the Jewish practice of slaughtering children" can have the devastating effect of strengthening the old libel against the Jews that the Jews condone the murder of children. In fact, there has never been a time in Jewish history where the Jews practiced child sacrifice. Never. Not before Abraham, not after him. Thank you!!!

Mr. Cahill is a great historian but he should not pretend to be an expert in Islamic history or theology. He claims there are striking parallells between the Catholic/Protestant conflict and Sunni/Shiite conflict. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sunni and Shia conflict is not a theological one but a political one. No historian would claim there was ever a war/genocide/ethnic cleansing/ happended anywhere in the world due to Sunni/Shia division. What is happening in Iraq right now is a fight to gain control of power and natural resource. The killings by Al Queda and other militant group is denounced and rejected by all authentic Islamic scholars and Muslim Heads of States. Please keep in mind, Osama (regardless of his claim) has a backgrould in Civil Engineering not Islamic Theology, or Zawahiri; was a doctor, before pretending to be a Zihadist. They do not reperesent Islam or Muslims as much as the KKK does not represent Christianity. Also Saddam Hussein was an equal opportunity killer, he made no disticntion between Shiaa's or Kurds or his own Sunnis when they became a threat to his power. Saddam was a communist (Baath Party) who rejected Al Qaeda. So, it is wrong to compare the genocides in history that was committed in the name of Christ to what is happening now in Iraq. I remember a famous quote by a leader of an Eastern Church during the Crusades as the Catholic Church was implementing genocide toward not only Muslims but also Jews and other Christhians; "Better the Turban of the Sultan than the Tiara of the Pope," Mr. Cahill is better off staying in his area of expertise and not misinform people on such an important venue as this.

Thomas Cahill is a pop-famous cultural cliff-noter who – yes – may have something important to say about the death penalty – but is sadly almost entirely without any recognizable merit on any other subject. In fact, all that Mr. Cahill said about anything on the 11/9/2007 program could fit nicely into a small arrogantly-designed pamphlet.

In the future, Mr. Moyers should take care to discuss subjects as important as the death penalty with the more eloquent, scholarly and wise people out there – perhaps Desmond Mpilo Tutu himself.

To John Petrichella

First, please stop misspelling my name. Second, I never identified myself as a secularist. Third, you claimed that Mr. Cahill did not seem to understand US history or what was going on in the world. And your evidence for this was from matters of theology. My point is that one does not need to have an understanding of matters of theology to understand what is going on in the world, or specifically the matter of the death penalty. Also, as to whether Cahill or Tutu are knowledgeable or qualified in areas of theology, they obviously are of a different belief than you. I would assume they are from a different background, and interpret matters of Scripture and theology differently. I never claimed that "secularism" had reached any sort of plateau. But of course there are many achievements I could point to that are the result on "secularism" or "humanism." But, I do believe that fundamentalism with regard to religious belief often does more harm than good. As an example, James Dobson, believes in the death penalty, but also is opposed to abortion, and claims that his views are based on the Bible. Even more exteme examples can be found in the religious wars of the 17th century, Inquisition, Crusades, and others.
As to the matter of the Coliseum:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04101b.htm

and To Janice Pound

Of course the original crime of murder is cruel. But that does not justify a cruel punishment, as it is illegal according to the Constitution. Also, you have not dealt with the issue of false punishment.

Arguments about applying the death penalty to people who have actually done the crimes for which they were found guilty are beside the point. The core question is our willingness to apply the death penalty to truly innocent people who happen to have been found guilty in a court of law.

Our system of justice in the United States of America is excellent, but not perfect. Truly innocent people have in fact been convicted of capital crimes, and sentenced to death. In my opinion the argument about executing people who have truly done the things for which they were convicted distracts us from a deeper moral question.

How many innocent people are we willing to execute in order to maintain the death penalty for people who have actually done capital crimes? For death penalty supporters the question is not whether you accept the execution of innocent people, you do, the question is one of proportion. Are you willing to tolerate the execution of one innocent person in ten to which the death penalty is applied, one in a hundred, one in a thousand, or one in a million?

Unless and until there is no chance whatsoever that an innocent person will be subject to the death penalty in this country, the inescapable moral cost of retaining the death penalty is to accept the execution of some innocent people.

I believe in the death penalty especially in horrendous crimes where the victim was tortured,and killed. But I think the death penalty should be carried out within 1-2 yrs. Saying a death penalty is cruel punishment as apposed to the violent crime committed is absurd. Perhaps life in prison is a worse penalty than death, but I don't believe that is true any more.

To Paul Anderson

I'm glad your glad Mr. Anderson.

And yes, I went to great lengths explaining from the bible how Mr. Cahill's view on theology was incorrect. He's the one with the credentials, claim's the expertise on theology, and the many books., remember ???

So why should my comment not be directed from a theological stand point ? Are you secularists so quick to take offense or is it that you, Mr. Anderson, just like to argue ???

And with regards to confusing people's views, you secularists have not reached a plateau of human perfection in "opinions" (opinions are like noses, everyone has one), and the world isn't a better place as a result of secularism, so get a life and lose the ego pal. Quick being such a dogmatist.

Lastly with regards to whether or not Christians were killed in the Colosseum, the suggested reading for you still stands.

To John Petrichella:

I am glad that you understand that many non-Christians are opposed to the death penalty. In your post, you go to great lengths explaining how Mr. Cahill has an incorrect understanding of theology. My point is that one does not have to have any understanding of theology to know that capital punishment is wrong. Indeed, theology often confuses people's view on the subject.
I repeat, there is no evidence that Christians were ever killed at the Coliseum. As I said, Christians were martyred at other Roman arenas. It was only in the early modern period that the myth of Christians being killed at the Coliseum began. I suggest you do some additional research.

I work in the prisons and am a local church pastor and get to see this issue from both sides. We can, if we care to, approach this with both the victim and the perpetrator in mind. Both need justice, and one is not more important in the eys of God than the other. Life without parole for the most violent offenders is much more of a detrrent than the death penalty. However, when it comes to murder, most perpetrators are in the heat of anger or passion and are not in a rational mind that considers the consequences. Mr. Cahill does a good job of showing the humanity of a convicted criminal. That story is VERY common. If you want to see a recent movie on this, watch "The Exonerated", which is about five wrongly convicted men and women who were all on death row. They were all INNOCENT, and the husband of the woman was executed befopre he could be exonerated. Shame on us for continuing a tradition of hatred and violence that singles out the poor and marginalized for death. I am astounded that people defend this barbaric system. Then again, we used to justify slavery, segregation, the genocide of Native Americans and keeping the vote from women. We are slow to realize our own moral blindness.

Only a person who has been untouched by violent crime could write that "crime is secondary." My 17 year old step-sister was murdered. The impact on my family has been unmeasurable. Cahill needs to think a bit more about the innocent, blameless victims of crime and less about the perpetrators. Our society spends far too much time wringing our collective hands about the problems of the convicted, and too little time thinking about the those who have been victimized by criminals. I am--truly--sorry for what happened to this young man, but there is no way that his story is typical.

To Paul Anderson,

First, I am well aware that many "seculars" are against the death penalty. I never said that opposition to it was only a Christian "thing" only, or that Christians have a lock on opposition of the death penalty, so please don't assume that I did.

Second, to say that there is no evidence that Christians were not torn apart in the Colosseum is not correct.

A quick note, the subterranean area under the wooden floor of the fighting area of the Colosseum stored not only the slave Gladiators, their weapons, but also the wild animals. The Christians were never "Guest".

Suggested reading would be:

"Arena: Story of the Colosseum", by J. Pearson
"De Spectaculis" by Tertullian
"The Lives of the Caesars" By Suctonius
"The Annals" by Tacitus
(also bone up on Roman Emperors "Nero" and "Domitian" they had a real passion for Christians.

Thank you for this interview with Thomas Cahill. He made very good points regarding the death penalty in the US and in other nations.
He also made some glaringly erroneous statements. He stated that "Shias and Sunnis hate each other more ferociously than they hate us." This statement is not true. Shias and Sunnis have lived together as neighbors, friends and even families for centuries. Muslim nations have a very long history of tolerance and respect. The last remaining Aramaic speaking Christian society is in Syria. Some of the oldest Jewish communities in the world reside in Morocco and Iran. During World War II Muslim countries offered safe haven for European Jews.
Is is indeed disappointing that Cahill, a theologian and historian, would use the terms "us" and "them".

Eliminate the death penalty in our country.

Thank you Bill Moyers and Thomas Cahill for an enlightening program.

Thank you Bill Moyers and thank you, Thomas Cahill for an extremely thought provoking hour.

May God forgive us and teach us the compassion that we need. End the Death Penalty forever...it is not our decision to make.

Initially, I supported the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I once, although reluctantly, supported the death penalty; however, when I saw the ugliness in the "shock & awe" combined with many personal trials such as the loss of my "career" after 15 years service followed by the death of my dad, I began earnestly seeking understanding and was led to REPENTANCE! I now see that Yehoshua the Messiah is indeed the Savior of ALL MANKIND which includes our most dreaded enemies. Our refusal to follow the teachings and example of Yehoshua leads to death & destruction. Through REPENTANCE as individuals, and as nations will Yahweh set us on a path of discovery leading to the understanding of the ONE TRUTH: Yehoshua is the ONLY WAY into the Kingdom of Yahweh, and He will draw ALL MANKIND into His Kingdom, and be ONE with His creation, the very works of His hands!
This, His PERFECT PLAN from the BEGINNING!

I was made to see what a BEAST I was in my CARNAL heart which led me to REPENTANCE!

(Ps 73:22) Then I was senseless and ignorant; I was { like} a beast before You. - E-NASB

Wars, capital punishment, economic oppression, etc are not the way of Yehoshua who was faithful to His own teachings of forgiveness, non-retaliation, & non-violence even to the point of death!

I thought it was written in stone: "Thou Shall Not Kill."
Was God wrong about that commandment?
And if so, should we give him life or death, or just crucify him again?

=
MJA

I do not support the Death Penalty as it is being used because their is too much killing of innocence people. Having said that I don't believe our society maybe even our world will not allow people to be safe because we have moved away from a moral society. Look back at Germany and remember what a godless society is capable.
When I listen to people already in prison and when asked the question what will you do when you get out and they say, "have a good meal then find someone to murder." Society will never be safe if the crimmals aren't more afraid of the punishment than they are of the crimes they're willing to commit.
Lot's of people want to go to Heaven not just because it's beautiful But Most People Really Don't Want To Go To Hell! So the threat of Hell keeps people from showing their really ugly side.

I watched the excellent interview with Thomas Cahill this morning. God, I wish people like Bill & Thomas were running the country instead of the posturing nitwits that money has chosen to install.

I, too, believe that there are many parallels to be drawn--and understood--between the fall of Rome and (what can only be considered) the fall of America. Not the least of which is a stark similarity that one can deduce from the increase in publicized and sensationalized violence and militarism--everything from the subjugation of Iraq and the Middle East, the death penalty, and "Christian" fundamentalism, to Ultimate Fight Club, Hummer SUVs, the NFL, YouTube videos, computer games, male machoism, and homophobia.

It is a global military, theological and economic unilateralism that I have no doubt will beguile us from reason and sense toward our doom.

There are two issues that must also be addressed;
One is that for many, the death penalty is not about punishment but to protect society from a failed justice system where predators are released to violate us again. Our top priority should be to address this failed system.

The second is the death penalty routinely imposed without trial by government. Our own government and Israel are two prominent offenders that assasinate at will and continuously, and I am astonished that we as society accept this without so much as wimper.

I have always been against the death sentence. I had a brother murdered and am still not one for the death sentence. It is so wrong in so many ways. It has been used to 'murder' people hated because of the color or their skin. Used because of their faith. Used as a excuse to soothe a crowd of angry whites agains an imaginary hurt by others of the minority. Also the hangings in Iran reminded me of the bitter fruits here in USA. Public executions were always used in a 'party' scenerio, picnics, games, laughter all with whites grinning and flushed with happiness that some poor black or non-minority was going to die and entertain them.

thank you so much for such an excellent show and one that comes at a perfect time in our country. As a people we need to follow the example of Archbishop Tutu and learn to forgive. I open to that teaching, daily.

John Petrichella is mistaken when he says Christians were torn to pieces at the Coliseum. There is no evidence Christians were ever killed there, although they were at other arenas. He also seems to be of the mistaken beleif that you have to be a Christian to be opposed to the death penalty. Most of Europe is secular, yet most view the death penalty as abhorrent.

I appreciate that Bill Moyers covers these difficult issues. The death penalty is not only immoral, it is ineffective, unConstitutional in that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, and simply unacceptable in that one can never be 100% certain someone is actually guilty. If someone in unjustly imprisoned he can at least be released at a later date. But what if he is dead?

Thank you for the interview with Thomas Cahill. He made many good points particularly about the death penalty. However he also made many glaringly erroneous ones:
for example, "The Shias and Sunnis, they hate each other more ferociously than they hate us." This is a completely baseless allegation and it is surprising and unnerving that a historian and writer would use the terms 'us' and them': has he not learned from the history he writes and speaks of?
Shias and Sunnis Muslims have lived side by side as neighbors and families for centuries. They could not have coexisted had this level of animosity existed before. Rather, it is since the US invasion that suspicion and attacks have been planted to cause a this rift and destabilize these areas for the benefit of a few corporations. This is nothing new. It was done by various nations in countries such as Lebanon and Pakistan before.
Muslim lands have a very long history of tolerance. Does Cahill not wonder how it is that the some of the oldest Jewish societies still exist in Syria and Morocco? How Maimonides, the great Jewish scholar flourished in Islamic Spain as a scholar appointed by the rulers? Or how the last Aramaic speaking Christian society still flourishes in Syria? Or how Muslim nations offered safe haven to tens of thousands of European Jews during WWII?
It is indeed very sad when a leading historian rewrites history, makes extremely ignorant statements and ignores extremely important facts. I now have second thoughts about bothering to read Cahill's books.

Thank you, Bill Moyers, for this moving edition of your show. As a life long Quaker but also a rape victim, I am aware of the difficulty of forgiveness. It has been possible, though abstract,to forgive in my case as the person was never caught and because my life was spared. However when I watched "Dead Man Walking" I found it nearly impossible, on a gut level, not to wish for him to feel a portion of what his victim felt. My wish for "revenge" was abhorrent to me, but real nontheless.
I am against the death penalty, and yet painfully aware of how hard it is when you see innocent people being killed. Can we forgive our own country for the horrors it has committed in our name?

It never ceases to amaze how these so called theological experts know so little about the bible and/or theology including Mr. Thomas Cahill.

For instance, Mr. Cahill said that the Jews rejected sacrificing children when Abraham didn't sacrifice his son Isaac.

First, there were no Jews during the time of Abraham and Isaac. A Jew (ess) is one whom
is a person belonging to the tribe of Judah.

The first one to use the name Jews was the writer of the books of Kings, Jeremiah, whose in 647 B.C.. Abraham was born 2018 B.C. and Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old. Genesis 17:17

They Abraham and Isaac were not even Israelites though the nation came through their blood line through prophecy and promise. Genesis 17:19

The near sacrifice of Isaac was not the final rejection of the Israelites or Jews of sacrificing their children. Under the 14th King of Judah (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) King Manasseh, true worship of God was replaced with the worship of the false god Baal to which the Jews sacrificed their children. 2 Kings Chapter 21.

As an expert on theology and a Christian Mr. Cahill fails to grasp and therefore explain why there is evil in the world. 1 John 5:19b says the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one. (Satan) And he became the evil one back in the Garden of Eden, and since then the rebellion has continued.

The more I watched this show the more I became convinced that Mr. Cahill demonstrated how little he really know what is going on in heaven and earth including US history.

Not once did Mr. Cahill ever mention the Christ or any of Christs' teachings, particularly on forgiveness.

When Mr. Moyer asked Desmond Tutu "what do you actually do when you forgive someone"? As Christians Mr Moyer we do not have those "rights" that Mr. Tutu's speaks of in his response, " I'm abandoning my right to revenge, to pay back".

Christ taught to "turn the other cheek" Matt. 5:39 and to "love and pray for your enemies" Matt 5:43

And the Apostle Paul said "do not avenge yourself' Romans 12:19, and "return evil for evil to no one" Romans 12:17.

Sounds like the blind leading the blind to me!

Oh and Mr. Moyer, it was the "Christians" who were torn to pieces by the lions in the Coliseum. The Gladiators fought them and if they were killed, they shouldn't have been there, but then Gladiators were not true Christians either.

Martskers:

There is nothing libel about ANCIENT Jewish human sacrifice. It was a common practice in ancient times, which survived even into 20th century in some "primitive tribe cultures".

I used to support death penalty. However, after learning that so many are poor blacks, I have lost my trust on the fairness of our legal system. Similarly, so many in the prisons for using drugs are blacks and latinos. Fairness of the legal system has been raised by a small number of politicians who looks honest to me, such as the former mayor of Baltimore and former governor of New Mexico. So I do not support death penalty now, although I am not a black or latino. In addition, it is suspicious that many jails now are run by private companies. Don't they have an interest in increasing prison population to increase their profit? Without our notice, the war in Iraq has also become a partial private war with company like Blackwater. Are our governments from federal to local level still public institutions or corporate money-making machines?

Thomas Cahill calls himself a "historian," but he propagates the Jewish blood libel by stating that Jews practiced ritual sacrifice, citing the biblical story of God testing Abraham by getting him to sacrifice his son, but stopping him from doing so. He knows (or ought to) better.

Then, he calls the Roman coliseum the biggest example of human cruelty in history. At most, several hundred thousand people died in the "games" that occurred there; it doesn't hold a candle to the concentration camps created by the Nazis that efficiently killed millions. How telling that someone who would propagate the blood libel would also conveniently forget the one true largest monument to human cruelty.

If you want to really understand human violence, I strongly recommend you reading anything (and everything) by Rene Girard.

Only the most backward nations still use the death penality. Only the poorest, least privileged people end up on death row and are subject to this governments right to murder. Many of those too poor to afford good legal support have been innocent but have been put to death. Perhaps Bush and Chaney who have led us into an illigeal war that has resulted in the deaths of ten's of thousands of people should be subject to the death penality? Perhaps those corporations and drug companies that cause the deaths of thousands be subject to the death penality? Perhaps our representatives who are paid off by insurance companies that have caused the deaths of ten's of thousands be subject to the death penality? The death penality is a cruel, abusive unjust law that is totally bias to poor people of color. It is an immoral primative act that in no way betters society. It instead reveals us as a people who lack compassion and wisdom and who resort to murder to solve our problems.
We have more people in prison in our nation then in any other country
including China, we support torture and we are systmeactically improisoning thousands of young people of color. We have become an immoral, cruel nation that has lost the meaning of compassion and a sense of national support of our citizens. A law that takes the life of a citizen of a nation and is not applied to all citizens equally is not a civil or just law. A law that permits insufficient or provides inacurate evidence that results in the taking of a persons life is not a just law but an abuse of the rule of law itself. Let us join all of Europe and the many other nations to be a nation oursleves of compassion and wisdom. As Bush and Chaney lead us down a dark path, let us take a stand and tell our representatives that we want to help people not destroy them.

Bill, I was disappointed in your selective choice to show graphic pictures of the uncondoneable hangings in Iran, and to avoid showing equally uncondoneable lynchings in recent US history. In the current sad and charged atmosphere when a case is being constructred to enter another pointless conflict, you are inadvertently helping build the case. Perhaps it is easier to see evil in the other but harder to see it ourselves. Otherwise, thank you for putting together another thought provoking program.

It is simply not Christian to kill another person, ever.

Only the most backeard nations still use the death penality. Only the poorest, least privileged people end up on death row and are subject to this governments right to murder. Many of those too poor to afford good legal support have been innocent but have been put to death. Perhaps Bush and Chaney who have led us into an illigeal war that has resulted in the deaths of ten's of thousands of people should be subject to the death penality? Perhaps those corporations and drug companies that cause the deaths of thousands be subject to the death penality? Perhaps our representatives who are paid off by insurance companies that have caused the deaths of ten's of thousands be subject to the death penality? The death penality is a cruel, abusive unjust law that is totally bias to poor people of color. It is an immoral primative act that in no way betters society. It instead reveals us as a people who lack compassion and wisdom and who resort to murder to solve our problems.
We have more people in prison in our nation then in any other country
including China, we support torture and we are systmeactically improisoning thousands of young people of color. We have become an immoral, cruel nation that has lost the meaning of compassion and a sense of national support of our citizens

Dear Mr. Cahill, I do understand your feelings of sympathy for Mr. Green, he did have a horrible childhood, but is that an excuse for murder? Do you feel anything for the victim or the victim's family?
My niece was murdered May 19, 2007. Her killer was also the victim of neglectful and abusive parents.
All we have heard is sympathy and empathy for the young woman who stabbed my niece to death.
My niece received a death sentence, without a trial and all who loved her, including her nine year old son, must serve a life sentence of being deprived of our precious loved one.
We need to remember the victims.

if it is based only on the change we see people on death row able to achieve, how much progress in forgiveness and in possibility for some kind of contribution to society, that alone should give us pause and say no, death is not the answer. Learning, healing, compassion, growth and change, those are the answers. The death penalty should not be a part of a truly civilized society.

The major contradiction (not too harsh a condemnation, I hope) I see in continuing to practice capital punishment is: if the state defines and forbids premeditated taking of a life how can it at the same time give itself permission to do so - use of lethal force for protection and safety is a different matter.

As a person in the 21st century, I do not believe in the death penalty. As a taxpayer, I totally object to the amount of money that is spent to do this. It costs so many times more to put someone to death than to incarcerate for life. You accomplish the same thing without playing God to with another's life and without spending the hundreds of thousands in trials to make sure they are guilty. It is not to say many trials trying to prove someone innocent will not happen, but they will be based on new info.

I also agree with the person that said what is wrong for an individual should not be sanctioned for a group, even if the group is the state.

As with all too many facets of American society, our system of justice does not begin to approach the enlightened ideals it claims to espouse.
Because our justice system is so terribly flawed, there is no way that any sentient being can condone the sanctioning of murder by the State.
So sad that, as a society, we seem complacent in accepting the murders committed by our State, often even loudly cheering our approval of the murderous State...can we conclude anything other than that we are not sentient beings? Hmmmmm, the American animals...seems somehow to be more fitting a title than the American people.
When will we rise above our animal selves and become, at last, human beings??

Never would have dropped the a-bomb on Europe? What about the fire bombing of Dresden? Wasn't it true that the war in Europe was over before the atomic bomb was ready?

Interesting how he laughs when he mentions how the martyrs were killed and the heads hung at the vatican.....

death penalty is murder by proxy

Robert A. Heinlein had one of his characters say that (paraphrased) your spot on the political spectrum could be determined by your answer to this question: Is it ever ok for a group of people to do what would be wrong for one person to do?
Really that is what our civilization boils down to, an affirmation of that question doesn't it?

For me the litmus test is simply this: Do the people of a given civilization enjoy the benefits of that civilization? If the answer is 'no' then your civilization is a failure. By that standard our civilization is a miserable failure.

As far as the death penalty goes I definitely do not agree that it is ok for a group of people to do something that is wrong for an individual to do. That being said, even if I did agree with the concept of the death penalty, our application of it is so far beyond any sane notion of equity that still it can not be supported.

In principle, I don't have a problem with permanently removing people from the world for sufficiently heinous crimes. In practice, the error rate in determining that people are actually guilty of said crimes is too high, the cost of litigating capital cases too high, and there will be disagreement on what constitutes "sufficiently heinous". Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is (a) easier to revoke than an execution and (b) cheaper than all the litigation that eventually gets a person to death row.

It is a barbaric practice unworthy of an "enlightened society".

Whatever claim we once held aspiring to that goal has been lost these last forty years on an array of fronts.

It is sanctioned murder, plain and simple, to our everlasting shame.