Friday, September 9, 2011

Conservative Christian Morality...or the clear lack thereof.


This is clearly inaccurate.
Republican Jesus would have
blonde hair and blue eyes. 

This just simply disgusts me. During the GOP debate at the Reagan Library, Gov. Rick Perry  answers the question of whether he loses sleep at the thought of executing an innocent man. Of course he doesn’t because he is a sociopath   has God on his side thinks that the system is perfect. We could get into a discussion about the possibility that the Perry Administration in Texas executed an innocent man and then proceeded to cover it up, but that is not the point that I want to make.

What sickens me is the reaction from the crowd at the 0:59 mark. It is stunning! People clap and hoot and holler as if it’s a tent revival and this is at the thought of people being executed by the State. I guarantee you every person clapping is white, conservative and Christian. Big Bad Gub’ment isn’t so big and bad if it has Republican Jesus at the helm.

For all their talk about superior morality these people are nothing more than hicks in a sociopathic cult that believes in divine retributive justice meted out by them. This is the same mentality (and likely the decedents) of scum bags that set out burning crosses and forming lynch mobs. They want to run they country? Fuck them! Any Christian that finds this acceptable is a hypocrite; which—let’s be honest— wouldn't be all that surprising.


7 comments:

Paul said...

First, I have to admit that I am pro death penalty. There are some people that I feel need to pay that price and stop costing taxpayers money.

That being said, if this is the way Texas (and "Rick the apostle") approach the death penalty, it should be stopped. The only way an execution should take place is if there is NO doubt by ANYBODY as to who committed the crime. Is that possible? Maybe not, but I am not in position to say. The problem is, if Rick Perry thinks that the Texas justice system is flawless and could not possibly ever make a mistake, he is an even bigger idiot than we all thought (and that is saying something).

Again, to be clear: I am a white, atheist, left-leaning moderate who supports the death penalty. I have no idea how the justice system works (except from what I see on "Law and Order"), or how to fix it. But I can clearly see that Perry's approach is the reason why people oppose the death penalty, and a good reason why it might need to be stopped. Even one innocent person sent to death is too many.

(I actually had another point to make when I started writing this, but I got distracted and completely forgot it. If I remember, I will try to add it later. oops.)

Nick said...

Of course they're trying to stop the investigation. If there is reasonable brought about by new evidence, it shakes the foundation of capital punishment. If you cede to the government the right to your life, then there is nothing you can say to safeguard your other rights. How can someone argue that the government can't interfere with their speech when they've granted them power to order their death?

Nina said...

As usual, the conservative mindset NEVER lets factual information supplant their ideology. Sickening.

Jason said...

Paul:

Stop costing the tax payer money? First, it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in jail for life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/

Second, how can the scale of the moral worth of a human's life versus the absolute bounds of a Government's power be tipped by handful of dollars?

I find it absolutely immoral to say it is better that someone die so that the tax payers can save money.

I am not commenting on the morality of the death penalty. I am commenting on the immorality of arguing that the cost of keeping someone imprisoned should in any way be a factor in determining the worth of a human life.

Steve said...

Until relatively recently I had the same opinion of the death penalty as Paul. I felt that the ONLY way it should be an option if the guilt and motive were clear cut. Not even reasonable doubt...the death penalty should be reserved for "No doubt...none."

It was actually Nick (commented above/wrote one of our guest posts) that convinced me over chicken wings and beer that the State should simply not have the right to take a human life. It didn't change my mind overnight, but it planted the seed for me to think about it.

Long story short: the death penalty opens up a slippery slope of legal, ethical and philosophical human rights issues that should not and cannot be granted to any government.

Paul said...

Jason:
Thanks for the info. I did say that I think the death penalty might save money, but that is actually not the main reason I am pro-death penalty (or, "sorta" pro-). Mainly, I have seen too much injustice and the results (victims) of said injustice so I sometimes feel that there are people that should lose their right to be around. I am aware of how harsh that sounds, and I don't ever expect to ever change your mind on this. It is simply the way I feel.

As for cost, I understand that it might not actually save $ in real dollars, but part of my problem now is that the appeals process is so long and drawn out that it takes FOREVER to get to any sort of conclusion. Hence the additional cost. As I stated before, I don't know if there is a reliable way of determining whether the person is conclusively guilty (part of the reason I am not "all-in" on the death penalty), but if it were clear of guilt and motive, then why must we waste all the $ on appeals and junk delays and just get to the point already.

Steve:
Perhaps if you or Nick would buy me some wings and beer, I might be open to some sort of discussion. Just saying...

Steve said...

Deal.