DEATH PENALTY QUESTION: Open Email To Dr. Falwell
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2004 02:01 PM
To: Towns, Elmer L.
Dear Dr. Falwell,
Please help me understand what your position is on the death penalty for criminals.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Towns, Elmer L.
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:53 AM
To: david
Subject: Death Penalty question
Dr. Falwell asked me to answer your email to him. We believe that all criminals can be saved and go to Heaven. Please remember the thief on the cross who repented. However, God forgives the broken moral law, but the broken criminal law has different jurisdiction. The person who breaks the civil law of the government must pay the price of the offence. Both Dr. Falwell and I believe that the death penalty for first degree (premeditated) murder is justifiable and is a biblical mandate. However, when people committee murder that is not premeditated (manslaughter) there should be a lesser punishment.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Elmer L. Towns
Vice President, Liberty University
Dean, School of Religion
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:53 AM
To: Towns, Elmer L.
Dear Mr. Towns,
Thank you for taking the time and responding to my email. I have a couple more questions for you and Dr. Falwell.
How do we justify commanding humans (prison guards) to commit a premeditated killing of other humans (prisoner)? Recent research has shown that anywhere from 25% to 50% of prisoners on death row may be innocent of the crime that put them there. This was research performed in Illinois, I doubt that the justice system and police force in Texas is better then in Illinois, in fact, I would venture to say that it’s much worse.
Clearly “thou shall not kill” is a definitive statement and there should be no human apportionment of what that means especially if one truly believes that it was written by the hand of god through Moses.
It seems that your political agenda has been added to your theological beliefs. Perhaps, too, there is an element of economic impetuous to your justification for the death penalty. Is it true that your main constituency believe in the death penalty? How much money do you receive from the Republican Party, prison industry (found mostly in Texas), and how much money from individuals living in states that kill prisoners?
It is a fact that allowing one human to kill another human is unnatural and contrary to our species’ nature. One human killing another human changes the surviving human mind forever. It is a slippery slope where the ride from killing, possibly innocent, humans in prisons to raging an unjust and economically motivated war, murdering thousands of innocent civilians, is quick and horrible. History has proven over centuries that religious fanaticism is the engine of the politically and economically motivated to manipulate the poor and under educated toward destruction, plunder and killing.
I am certain that as a religious man, you will understand the dangers of the power that is ours to use to destroy and the responsibility we have not to ever use it.
I thank you for your response to my previous email but you do not need to respond to this one. Answer my questions within your own mind with a thought to personal enlightenment within the context of the world you live in.
“…I did it for the worst possible reason, because I could.”
President Clinton when asked why he played with Ms. Monica in the Oval office.
“…bring ‘em on!”
US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," (Unfortunately Mr. Bush has never experienced the true horror that is war. Would he send his children to Iraq as soldiers?)
Clinton, as Governor, had 3 prisoners killed, Bush had 142 killed. They both have blood on their hands but I believe Mr. Bush actually enjoyed the idea of killing while Mr. Clinton will suffer until he dies for his participation in those deaths.
Love & peace,
David
From: David
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2004 02:01 PM
To: Towns, Elmer L.
Dear Dr. Falwell,
Please help me understand what your position is on the death penalty for criminals.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Towns, Elmer L.
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:53 AM
To: david
Subject: Death Penalty question
Dr. Falwell asked me to answer your email to him. We believe that all criminals can be saved and go to Heaven. Please remember the thief on the cross who repented. However, God forgives the broken moral law, but the broken criminal law has different jurisdiction. The person who breaks the civil law of the government must pay the price of the offence. Both Dr. Falwell and I believe that the death penalty for first degree (premeditated) murder is justifiable and is a biblical mandate. However, when people committee murder that is not premeditated (manslaughter) there should be a lesser punishment.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Elmer L. Towns
Vice President, Liberty University
Dean, School of Religion
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:53 AM
To: Towns, Elmer L.
Dear Mr. Towns,
Thank you for taking the time and responding to my email. I have a couple more questions for you and Dr. Falwell.
How do we justify commanding humans (prison guards) to commit a premeditated killing of other humans (prisoner)? Recent research has shown that anywhere from 25% to 50% of prisoners on death row may be innocent of the crime that put them there. This was research performed in Illinois, I doubt that the justice system and police force in Texas is better then in Illinois, in fact, I would venture to say that it’s much worse.
Clearly “thou shall not kill” is a definitive statement and there should be no human apportionment of what that means especially if one truly believes that it was written by the hand of god through Moses.
It seems that your political agenda has been added to your theological beliefs. Perhaps, too, there is an element of economic impetuous to your justification for the death penalty. Is it true that your main constituency believe in the death penalty? How much money do you receive from the Republican Party, prison industry (found mostly in Texas), and how much money from individuals living in states that kill prisoners?
It is a fact that allowing one human to kill another human is unnatural and contrary to our species’ nature. One human killing another human changes the surviving human mind forever. It is a slippery slope where the ride from killing, possibly innocent, humans in prisons to raging an unjust and economically motivated war, murdering thousands of innocent civilians, is quick and horrible. History has proven over centuries that religious fanaticism is the engine of the politically and economically motivated to manipulate the poor and under educated toward destruction, plunder and killing.
I am certain that as a religious man, you will understand the dangers of the power that is ours to use to destroy and the responsibility we have not to ever use it.
I thank you for your response to my previous email but you do not need to respond to this one. Answer my questions within your own mind with a thought to personal enlightenment within the context of the world you live in.
“…I did it for the worst possible reason, because I could.”
President Clinton when asked why he played with Ms. Monica in the Oval office.
“…bring ‘em on!”
US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," (Unfortunately Mr. Bush has never experienced the true horror that is war. Would he send his children to Iraq as soldiers?)
Clinton, as Governor, had 3 prisoners killed, Bush had 142 killed. They both have blood on their hands but I believe Mr. Bush actually enjoyed the idea of killing while Mr. Clinton will suffer until he dies for his participation in those deaths.
Love & peace,
David
Comments
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 11:40 AM
To: David
Subject: RE: Death Penalty question
First of all the Commandment, “Thou shall not kill” is different than what you say. Killing is premeditated murder. Obviously the solider in battle must kill another, and according to Romans 13, the human government has the right to execute capital punishment. I am sure that you have seen the argument for Genesis 9:6.
You have accused me of adding political agenda to our theological belief. Obviously, we do not receive anything from the Republican Party or the prison industry. That is not even our concern; apparently that is your concern.
I would suggest that you go back and look at the nature of human government. According to sociologist; government is an entity, just as much as family, church, etc. God gave that entity a life to establish laws, and to determine how people should live under those laws. Should people not keep those laws, God has determined punishment.
Apparently you are a partisan, and not an honest seeker of truth.
I believe I am a seeker of truth, although there is no way for me to prove that to you and you’re entitled to wear the mantle of self righteousness if you like to end our conversation but I find this enlightening.
Four questions:
1. Is Gen 4:15 an exception to the rule of Gen 9:6?
2. How is the justification for one man killing another man who shed another man’s blood made because we’re made in the image of God?
3. Do you think God thought about the inevitable, human-like fallibility in our legal system that would and does condemn to death innocent people?
4. Why am I a partisan and how would you define the word? (perhaps the below definition isn’t the one you had in mind)
Thanks again for your time.
Peace,
David
Gen9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Gen4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
par•ti•san also par•ti•zan P n. A weapon having a blade with lateral projections mounted on the end of a long shaft, used chiefly in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 11:32 AM
To: david
Subject: RE: Death Penalty question
Thank you for your definition of partisan. I apologize for calling you one and will not use the word again.