Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 25th July 2008 Change Date

Life & Style - inside your Evening News every Thursday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Kirk ready to condemn the death penalty



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

THE Church of Scotland is set to voice outright opposition to the death penalty for the first time.
The Kirk's General Assembly, which opens in Edinburgh next Thursday, will be asked to agree that capital punishment is "always and wholly unacceptable" and is no answer even to the most heinous of crimes.

The Assembly discussed the death penalty briefly last year in relation to Saddam Hussein and expressed disappointment at the lack of condemnation of his execution from politicians in the UK.

Now a report by the Church & Society Council argues the death penalty brutalises any society which practices it.

The report says that no system of justice is free from error or arbitrariness and the threat of the death penalty has manifestly failed to deter murder, war crimes and genocide.

It goes on to say that the death penalty conflicts with the right to life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.





The full article contains 161 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 May 2008 11:45 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Andrew Murphy,

EDINBURGH 10/05/2008 13:41:16
How can the church condemn the death penalty when we hear of so many horrific stories of murder in this country?

We now have modern methods of detection, and we have DNA and trace DNA, which, can prove conclusively whether someone has committed the crime of denying someone else’s right to life.

Most murderers admit to their crimes when they are caught, then they laugh at our laws when they get 13 years in jail.

It’s time to bring back the death penalty where the proof guilt and deceit is overwhelming.
2

Toast,

10/05/2008 16:18:51
Hardly relevent given the tiny percentage of the population who regularly attend church.
3

Douglas,

Bathgate 11/05/2008 11:06:56
Kirk ready to condemn the death penalty.

My God Jim, are you insane? :o)
4

Fanling,

Switzerland 12/05/2008 04:06:03
"It goes on to say that the death penalty conflicts with the right to life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights."

The ECHR is a truckload of do-gooder b*llocks scripted by unelected fools whose sole mission is to extend their own overpaid tenure. Who repeatedly benefits except the routinely convicted criminal, and now increasingly, the appellant terrorist? The kirk, which few pay attention to for obvious reasons, demonstrates its head-in-the-sand stance yet again.
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/05/2008 09:26:51
#1 Never mind all that guff about DNA - the Bible tells Christians directly to kill people for a range of crimes, such as adultery or consensual sex between people of the same gender. By opposing the death penalty aren't they acting against God's will?

Odd that the tiny minority of Christians who push for such basic Biblical tenets to be upheld are largely branded as nutters - Fred Phelps leaps to mind. But aren't they the only ones with a coherent position?
6

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/05/2008 10:16:29
Hello Duncan,

Firstly, you need to actually study the doctrines of Covenants between the OT and NT (Old Testament and New Testament).

Believing Jews are still under the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law), while Christians are under the New Covenant (Christian Doctrines).

The OT did indeed allow for the death penalty as defined by Levitical Law. Christians are NOT held under the Levitical Covenants (Mosaic Law), as one can clearly see by the abolition of Blood Sacrifice under NT doctrine (Christ died once for all our sins-those that take Him as Lord and Saviour; 1 John is a good place to learn this doctrine).

Having explained this doctrinal dichotomy, I must however point out that Christians are also required to obey human law, so long as it does not violate NT doctrines.

The death penalty in the OT (as mentioned above) did cover religious laws, but it also covered civil laws (one might argue that they were one and the same, but doctrinally speaking they were different). This means that a Christian can in fact support the Death Penalty, should he/she desire to so do. The opposite of course is also allowed, in that a person is not required to support the DP: it is a matter of personal conscience.

Personally, I support the death penalty and find that some people calling themselves Christians but who also support abortion, are not worthy of the name (and who cannot doctrinally support a pro-abortion stance).

Lastly, relating to Fred Phelps: the man is not a Christian in any doctrinally contextually supportable sense of the term. Scripture is clear that if a man 'hate his brother' the love of Christ is not in him. Fred Phelps and his followers thrive on hate, support hate, and promote hate, so contextually and doctrinally speaking, they in no way, shape, or form, conform or adhere to the tenets of Christ.

Just because a person calls themselves something, does not mean that they are actually that 'thing'.

It rather goes to a currently popular issue withi
7

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 12/05/2008 10:22:34
Hello Duncan CONT,

It rather goes to a currently popular issue within the USA (and one which has been hidden beneath the surface for many years), pertaining to politically conservative black Americans.

Liberal/Left black Americans do NOT consider conservative blacks to actually BE blacks: they do NOT 'fit the political mold' and so are not considered to be black, no matter how much melanin is in their skin.

This arose from the cultural paradigm of 'shadism' in the USA: the lighter color skin a black American had, the 'farther' they were from 'actually being black'. The reason of course, was that lighter skinned blacks had more 'white' blood in them, ie, they had a mother or father who was not black.

They didn't meet the cultural tenets of being 'black'.

The Fred Phelps church and membership is rather like this, but in the obverse: biblical doctrine provides an objective criteria for judging whether or not a person is a Christian.

It's all there in 'black and white' (sorry for the pun); one need but read it and accept it contextually, at face value.

Here's another quick example:

Doctrinally speaking, homosexuality is a violation of God's laws: a homosexual (or unrepentant unwed heterosexual for that matter) who is unrepentant for engaging in sexual behaviour cannot doctrinally be considered a Christian.

God still loves them despite their continued unrepentance (which disproves the hate from Fred Phelps and company) and wants them to turn away from their sins and find salvation in Christ, but His love for them does not preclude His condemnation of their actions.

I hope this has helped to better understand the dichotomy.

Cheers from the Rockies
8

Biker,

Ayr 12/05/2008 17:34:46
#1 Andrew. perhaps consider the number of misscarriages of justice over the past few years and then think how many of these people would have been executed. The list is endless, which I suppose is why AT LAST even the church is against the death penalty. It solves nothing. It isn't even a deterrant.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.