 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/14/2010 11:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/15/2010 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I found this comment pertinent:
"For me, one of the more revealing episodes was the public reaction to the Abu Ghraib revelations—the callous indifference or approval a lot of people exhibited to the cruelty recorded in those photos."
It really did speak volumes (if it's what I'm remembering it to be) because it had to do with how prisoners were treated in literally de-humanizing ways (even capital punishment is not dehumanizing when it is just). I've heard plenty of people throughout my life (both left and right) defend the State's tolerance of prison rape because of its deterrent effect, as if there aren't other ways to deter that don't involve human depravity. Once people resort to this level of inhumanity in their view of the role of the State, it should be no surprise that the State can behave as it does with virtual "consent of the governed."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/15/2010 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/16/2010 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Jeff : even capital punishment is not dehumanizing when it is just
Daniel: Assuming that punishment, not reconciliation, is the ultimate manifestation of justice. I support proscriptive containment concerning individuals who display an unwillingness to respect other individuals around them. However, the ultimate goal of that containment shouldn't be punishment, but reconciliation of relationships between the guilty party and the rest of society.
As Will Campbell says, "Prisoners are prisoners and it is our vocation to set them free." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/16/2010 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | Daniel: Assuming that punishment, not reconciliation, is the ultimate manifestation of justice
Jeff: If UR is true, in which case reconciliation is the ultimate manifestation of justice, there is still no reason to assume that punishment (i.e., accountability) is not a means to reconcilation. Look at the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Did it look like, from that account, Christ was trying to suggest that accountability doesn't lead people to something like repentance or regret? It seems to me, on the contrary, that the account was suggesting precisely that.
Granted, you could argue, as Zach does, that God never holds people accountable unilaterally. But I don't see how we could prove that accountability can't tend towards repentance. And, therefore, accountability can not be proven to be non-benevolent, as far as I can tell. And, therefore, to me, it gets down to what is most plausibly derivable from the gospels and other canonical texts. And I have no idea how to make sense of Christ's words in terms of Zach's theory without just reading those views into the texts themselves, unnecessarily. I say "unnecessarily," because their (Christ's words) rationality and intelligibility (even in terms of UR) don't depend on the view that accountability isn't unilateral.
Indeed, I don't know what it means to say "where ___ is given, ___ is required," UNLESS it means that accountability is unilaterally doled out by God and/or Christ as a kind of loving motivation, as is "sonship" and "servant" discipline (as per Hebrews & Revelation). But if such consequences occurred as soon as we misrelated, our resulting behavior would tend to be more associative/habitual, like animals, instead of involving the degrees of libertarian freedom that can only be conditioned by the epistemic distance that results from postponement of the FULL consequences of our actions.
If what I'm saying is coherent, then it is perfectly coherent to say that the State could have been instituted by God to prolong the creational project (given the finiteness of God's long-suffering), thereby increasing the potential number of people, for this project, who eventually WILL be reconciled. IOW, there is a way to see even State deterrence as an ULTIMATE good for ALL. Because the MORE, the MERRIER, once the party begins! 
As long as the greater MERRINESS (which lasts into eternity) outweighs the temporal suffering tolerated to occasion it, we have maximal rational benevolence brought about, in part, by accountability. Which is just another way of saying, consequentialism still makes sense for UR even if accountability is what most people intuitively think of it as. And it also implies that capital punishment CAN be, to the extent that it deters, a means to greater benevolence for ALL--even he/she who is terminated, thereby.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 1/16/2010 1:44:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/17/2010 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Jeff: punishment (i.e., accountability)
Daniel: I'm not sure how capital punishment is in any way being "accountable" for ones actions. All capital punishment does is disallow for that prisoner to reconcile with the victims. The "reconciliation" I'm talking about includes becoming aware of the damage one has caused upon others. And by 'aware' I mean full empathy. Not merely an intellectual acceptance that he has caused pain, but the spiritual and emotional understanding of the misrelation he enacted. What other accountability do we need? Is the killing of the guilty, in and of itself, justice?
Jeff: Did it look like, from that account, Christ was trying to suggest that accountability doesn't lead people to something like repentance or regret
Daniel: When did I ever suggest that people shouldn't be held accountable? I said that I support proscriptive containment (aka imprisonment). Even though the prison system itself has a massive amount of problems with it, people DO need to be held accountable. And within the context of a state, that accountability will (likely) only take place when the state captures the guilty and mandates reconciliation. Death sentences are not a form of accountability, they are a perversion of justice that is more like vengeance.
Jeff: And, therefore, accountability can not be proven to be non-benevolent, as far as I can tell.
Daniel: I completely agree. I simply fail to see how capital punishment is, in any way, accountability. If anything, it's a way of postponing accountability (given a Christian ontology), because it's effectively making the claim that "we don't want to deal with forgiving you, and helping you towards freedom [and I mean both spiritual and physical]. So we're going to kill you and let God figure it out."
Jeff:Indeed, I don't know what it means to say "where ___ is given, ___ is required," UNLESS it means that accountability is unilaterally doled out by God and/or Christ as a kind of loving motivation, as is "sonship" and "servant" discipline (as per Hebrews & Revelation). But if such consequences occurred as soon as we misrelated, our resulting behavior would tend to be more associative/habitual, like animals, instead of involving the degrees of libertarian freedom that can only be conditioned by the epistemic distance that results from postponement of the FULL consequences of our actions.
Daniel: I have no significant disagreements with any of this. Our disagreement stems from what accountability means.
Jeff: If the role of the state is to set prisoners free when they are deemed fit for freedom, wouldn't there be plenty of people who are good enough actors that could commit heinous crimes and then "show" themselves to be fit for freedom shortly thereafter?
Daniel: I'm honestly not sure how I understand the duality between the state and the church. Do we calculate pragmatic politics based upon what state we're in IOW, do Christian politics become relativistic based upon what type of government we find ourselves living under? For example, how do we determine what constitutes a capital crime? Do we support the gulags and death camps in Stalinist Russia, because those people served as a deterrence of dissension (an action the state deemed unacceptable)? Or do we base our politics on the principle of the cross? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/17/2010 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Let's get some definitions, Daniel. I'm not understanding how the forfeiture of life can not be a species of accountability. How do you define "accountability" such that capital punishment is not accountability? Second, vengeance, as the bible speaks of it, is not injustice. Indeed, the greek root for "righteous," which is also the greek root for words like "just" is actually part of the greek word for "vengeance." So I'm not seeing the dichotomy you see there, either. As for legitimate State action, I think it is obvious that scripture does not sanction any and every kind of deterrence regardless of whether it involves just recompense. That was my whole appoint about prison rape. There is no doubt that prison rape deters like CRAZY. That does not at all mean it is not a positive evil, even for the State.
But clearly, to me at least, the State has divinely delegated perogatives I don't have. I can't, e.g., imprison people for the purpose of promoting reconciliation. Or at least I see nothing in scripture that remotely indicates I have that right. Thus, if you are arguing that we all have that right, I would want to know how you get there. If you're agreeing with me that the State has perogatives I don't, how do we determine what they are?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/19/2010 12:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Jeff: Let's get some definitions, Daniel.
Daniel: Sure thing.
Jeff: I'm not understanding how the forfeiture of life can not be a species of accountability. How do you define "accountability" such that capital punishment is not accountability?
Daniel: Capital Punishment is certainly a form of "accountability" within a worldview where "eye for an eye" holds true. IOW, it can be accountability if you believe that if you kill, you should be killed. However, I'm fairly certain that from a Christiological perspective, that understanding of accountability can no longer hold true. In other words, my understanding of accountability is not universal, it wouldn't be coherent outside of a Christian perspective (which is why I'm hesitant to begin postulating what the state should or shouldn't do).
So, when I use the word 'accountable' I mean it in a relational sense. We have to answer, and be responsible for, the misrelation we cause. That mislreation can only be corrected by the victim and perpetrator. More specifically, that misrelation can only be corrected by the reconciliation of the victim and the perpetrator. I don't see how capital punishment can work towards correcting that misrelation. The victim needs to forgive, and the perpetrator needs to repent. If capital punishment is supposed used as some sort of....threat, in order to coerce a repentance from the perpetrator, then all we are doing is manipulating individuals and using terror to force repentance under duress.
Jeff: Second, vengeance, as the bible speaks of it, is not injustice.
Daniel: Perhaps God's vengeance is not injustice, but I can guarantee you, that every victim wanting to see the criminal who killed one of their loved ones put to death, is not trying to forgive that criminal. Perhaps we should just follow "Vengence is mine says the Lord", and leave God to it.
Jeff: As for legitimate State action, I think it is obvious that scripture does not sanction any and every kind of deterrence regardless of whether it involves just recompense.
Daniel: I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. When Paul wrote Romans 13, he was talking about one of the most brutal, imperialistic, utterly corrupted, and oppressive governments to ever exist.
Jeff: If you're agreeing with me that the State has perogatives I don't, how do we determine what they are?
Daniel: I don't know. I think Greg hits the mark when he discusses power over vs. power under systems in Myth of a Christian nation. The State is based upon a corrupted conception of leadership, power, and legitimacy. Whatever divine prerogatives the State has received, chances are they are corrupted beyond recognition. Thus, to discuss the 'justness' of a system dealing out capital punishment is to legitimize that corruption of power, then we begin to construct our politics on a base other than that of Christ dying on a cross.
I can only think that Christ came to save, die for, and serve the guilty, the wicked. That's us. All of us. Since when is it theologically acceptable to proclaim judgement upon someone (not just judgement, but a death sentence!!!) whom Christ came and died for? I don't know how we can get around it. Playing games with what the State (which takes the form of some individual who is just as guilty as the rest of us) can do that individuals can't do seems to miss the point. How can the redeemed possibly be arrogant enough to think that we have any right to condemn anyone, to anything? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/20/2010 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: If you're agreeing with me that the State has perogatives I don't, how do we determine what they are?
Daniel: I don't know. I think Greg hits the mark when he discusses power over vs. power under systems in Myth of a Christian nation.
Jeff: Then how does the state have a legitimate right to imprison, at all, even to do what you're contending for? They either have perogatives I don't, or they don't have such perogatives. If they don't, are you saying that we, as Christians, should be imprisoning people? I'm not at all following you at this point.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/20/2010 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff:
Jeff: I'm not at all following you at this point.
Daniel: Sorry. My statements are slightly confused. They're confused because I haven't found any solid ground to stand on concerning the whole 'what rights do states have?' issue. I'm honestly not sure. I come from a Mennonite/Anabaptist tradition, and I'm fairly firm in my belief in non-violence, but much of the Anabaptist tradition of nonviolence comes from an isolationist perspective (the most extreme examples of this are the Amish and Hutterites) which I believe is counter-productive.
Luckily, the second part of the interview with McCarraher is up, and he kind of addresses this topic (through Obama, oddly enough):
Somebody said...
The Nobel speech was Obama’s grandest ideological statement to date, a reassertion of American imperial hegemony in somber but unmistakable tones. He sounded all the standard Niebuhrian canards: nation-states can’t be expected to abide by the same moral rules as individuals; great moral leaders such as King and Gandhi never had to face the challenges—or “realities”—that political leaders such as Obama have to face; Hitler and lesser monsters couldn’t have been defeated by nonviolence, only by bloodshed. It’s now a tradition that saying such things lends gravitas, indicates Responsibility and Maturity, bestows the mantle of Seriousness. Pacifism, for lack of a better word, is dismissed as a sign of immaturity and unrealism, if not outright cowardice.
All three of those canards deserve a response. The first one is, in a sense, correct; nation-states can’t act like individuals. But as the great A. J. Muste once objected, doesn’t that say something pretty awful about nation-states? The canard assumes that the nation-state is the only legitimate political identity, which is a very debatable assertion.
As for King and Gandhi not having the responsibilities of a state official, well, first, refer back to Muste, and second, what’s that got to do with anything?
And as for what’s often considered the KO punch to nonviolence—hey, what about Hitler?—I think we need to point out that no one ever attempted a concerted nonviolent resistance to Hitler in Germany, certainly not the German churches, Protestant or Catholic. God only knows how the history of the world would have been different if there had been a nonviolent movement against German fascism. One of the few heartening chapters in Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem describes the nonviolent resistance of the Danes to Nazi occupation and their largely successful effort to protect Danish Jews from the Judeocide.2 So I think it’s eminently reasonable to think that nonviolence could have prevented or brought down the Nazi government.
theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=926 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2010 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | From the article: So I think it’s eminently reasonable to think that nonviolence could have prevented or brought down the Nazi government.
Jeff: I think it's reasonable to believe that nonviolent INSUBORDINATION could have brought down the Nazi government if sufficient NUMBERS functioned according to that mode of operandi. What I don't think is reasonable is to take seriously, given what we know about human nature, the possibility that enough people will ever choose that mode of operandi. Too many people think of our overlords as benefactors, just as Jesus said. I heard this week that some guy said he would vote 20 times to keep a particular candidate out of office. This is how too many people think. They are FOR government (i.e., the use of FORCE against humans), but they are AGAINST the rule of law (i.e., justice).
What, then, do I think Paul was saying in Rom. 13? That the government was instituted by God to avenge (i.e., render just recompense) as a means of deterring those who are intransigent so the world would not so rapidly reach a state where God would have to intervene in divine judgment. It's the secular version of "if we don't judge ourselves, God WILL judge us (1 Cor. 11)." It's just that God deters, thus, through an institution that, like parents and all other authority, is quite fallible. That doesn't mean it would be better if there was no such role as parenting. Sometimes, all we have is a lesser of evils to choose from. My own experience with non-governmental authority leads me to believe that the problem is MUCH larger than the effects of civil government, per se.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 1/22/2010 5:29:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:08 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|