Monday, September 26, 2011

The Execution of Troy Davis

Convicted murderer Troy Davis was executed late last week in Georgia. By all reasonable accounts, he was guilty of murder. He deserved to pay with his life for what he did.

But it was wrong to execute him.

That is not to say that his defenders were right in any way but one. The debate over his execution was a jumbled mess, riddled with half-truths, hypocrisy, and boilerplate leftist agitprop.

The evidence against Davis was overwhelming, as all courts that examined the evidence found. His case was reviewed methodically at many levels, and no competent jurist found any reason to question his guilt. The crime for which he was convicted was horrendously brutal; he shot a young police officer-- father of two young children-- in the chest and then point-blank in the face because the officer tried to help a homeless man Davis was pistol-whipping. The officer was a hero, trying to protect a helpless man from a vicious thug. He paid with his life. May God bless him and his family.

But there is no justification for gratuitous killing, even killing of a reprehensible murderer by the state. Davis' guilt or innocence is not the issue. His humanity, degraded as he made it, is the issue. Like abortion and euthanasia, the death penalty is immoral, at least in modern society where the public can be protected without putting an offender to death.

The campaign to save Davis' life was mostly detestable. Davis was not innocent, and most of the lefty hypocrites who protested his execution never raised a finger to save any of the 40 million 'not-guilty' babies slaughtered by abortionists since 1973, and never stood up for Terri Schiavo who was callously starved to death several years ago for no other reason than her disability.

But killing is wrong, even killing people who richly deserve it. Davis could have been incarcerated for life, and posed no further threat to the lives of others. His killing by the State of Georgia was wrong. Not as wrong as the killing he committed, of a completely innocent man, and not as wrong as killing innocent children in the womb. But wrong, nonetheless.

Killing in war or killing in self-defense or by a police officer can be moral, if the intent is to stop lethal aggression, and the innocent can't be protected unless the aggressor is stopped. Sometimes lethal force is unavoidable. But if the innocent can be protected without killing, then killing is never moral. Never.

We need to say no the culture of death. All of it.


  1. I agree. We should execute only atheists.

  2. Mike,
    I could not agree more. The guy looked as guilty as sin, but shedding more blood when there was alternatives? Wrong. There are cases, here and there, that make me wonder and stretch my beliefs to the limit (ie child murder and high treason)... but in principle, I feel NO execution is justified in the current system.
    The contrast with abortions (and in some countries Euthanasia too!) is an excellent one. So many of these 'modern' and 'liberal' protesters would happily back 'choice' and 'right to die' legislations.

    Agree? No one suggested executing ANYONE. That ANYONE includes all your flavours of Monism (IE materialism and 'atheism'). De Egnor is not promoting selective killing. Rather is seems to me he is promoting NONE; NO killing.
    No killing babies, no killing killers. No one.
    it breaks down like this:
    A)There are those who think the babies should not be killed, but the killers SHOULD be killed. I can see their logic, but I disagree.
    B)There are those who feel killers should be spared, but it is a woman's 'right' to kill babies growing in her womb. This logic is warped. I am prevented from even considering this position by morality; it is an AMORAL and nihilist position.
    3)Then there are those like myself (and the Doctor, it seems) who feel there should be NONE killed - not even the people who kill the babies in point 2.

  3. Well whadya know, for once I have to strongly disagree!

    If there is anything wrong with capital punishment then we must blame the justice of God. It is his idea. Not 'was', 'is'.
    He commanded it and with high reason and perfect wisdom.

    The apostle Paul supported it, and so must have all the others; and of course Christ himself since his apostles would never have taught what he disapproved of.

    "For he is the servant of God to you for good. But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his hand for nothing: he is God's servant, making God's punishment come on the evil-doer." - Rom 13:4

    If capital punishment is always wrong, then we should have no lethally armed police or army.
    So why is that it can be right in the immediate, but not in the consequence? Before a murder is committed but not after?

    Worse, if always wrong, no man should defend his family against intruders to the point of lethal force either, no matter the circumstances.

    Officers and soldiers apply capital punishment in the immediate when necessary.

    So, suddenly it's wrong in the consequence?
    Makes no sense.

    Where does this idea come from? It is fine in self defense but wrong after a crime has been committed?
    What reason lies behind this thinking?

    Opposing capital punishment in cases like Davis, is opposing justice.

    "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." - Gen 9:6
    God declares here that the death penalty required for murder precisely because man is made in his image!

    That command was given before the Mosaic law, then reinforced in Mosaic law.

    Furthermore, to claim that a life taken does not deserve another life taken is to utterly diminish the value of human life.

    To say that murder, as in the Davis case, certainly deserves death but death must never be given is simply unreasonable and groundless and an affront against justice and the value of human life.

    To claim that a human may not forfeit his right to life no matter how many murders he commits is simply ludicrous.
    Strict justice demands capital punishment; for, in refusing to take the life of one who wrongly and willfully took another's is claiming the life of the perpetrator to be of greater value than the life of the slain.

    If you steal 100$, justice requires that 100$ be repaid, plus interest & damages occasioned by the loss of property to the victim.

    What else but a life is worth a life? Nothing.

    So in the case of murder, we are clearly saying, by our milksop and unrighteous refusal to obey God; in meting out true justice and punishment equal to the measure of the crime, and also equal to the value of the precept, "do no murder", that strict justice must NOT be applied to the law against murder!

    This modern idea that says, "lets not kill so we won't be like the killer" is incredibly bad logic at its worst.

    It intrinsically assigns more value to the life of the killer than to that of the victim.
    It diminishes the value of human life, but NOT taking it when justice requires it. It doesn't respect it, as the promoters of such would have us believe.

  4. ... continued ...

    If capital punishment were wrong God himself could never have authorized it. Not in the Old or New testaments, for neither testament annuls moral right or wrong.

    If it were always immoral to take life willfully, in cases where life has willfully AND wrongfully been taken, then God himself could never authorize let alone command it, and that under ANY testament of ANY kind.

    Yet God did and still does command this.

    Not "bearing the sword in vain", definitely implies capital punishment.

    Putting murderers in jail for life is a greater crime against both God and humanity than capital punishment is and a crime against equity in justice.

    Are there cases in which the death penalty should not be applied and where mercy is the greater good? No doubt there are, but claiming all murderers must not receive the full due of justice for their crime(s) is utter foolishness and an insult to both God and man, created in his image.

    The precept, "do no murder" is plainly only declaratory of the one great universal law of love. And so is the proper sanction of that law, equal to the crime committed.

    To spare the lives of all killers is to demean and undermine the sanctions of law and to deny that only life equals life.

    A law without sanctions is no law at all.
    But, a law with sanctions unequal to the consequences of the crime and unequal to value of the precept - saving life - is less than a real law and near meaningless.

    Saving all murderers is pure injustice against both God and the victims and society which must continue paying for the well being of the criminal.

    Refusal to apply the death penalty in cases like Davis, is refusal to recognize the right of the victim to have defended himself to the death, if he had been able.

    It is also putting the society at risk of further loss of life should the killer escape and start killing again.

    The opposition to capital punishment in all cases, is not only NOT defending the value of human life but indeed, of demeaning it.

  5. "If there is anything wrong with capital punishment then we must blame the justice of God. It is his idea. Not 'was', 'is'.
    He commanded it and with high reason and perfect wisdom."
    "If capital punishment were wrong God himself could never have authorized it."

    Protip : your god is imaginary.

  6. @Gary:

    [The opposition to capital punishment in all cases, is not only NOT defending the value of human life but indeed, of demeaning it.]

    I agree with much of what you say. In fact, I think that much of the opposition to capital punishment is just that-- a demeaning of life, by taking the side of the criminal. I notice that most anti-death penalty protestors never stand up for the innocent. They would have passionately supported aborting Troy Davis when he was in the womb. They only respect his life after he became a murderer.

    But I oppose all gratuitous killing, even if it is just. The only justification for killing is when it is clearly necessary to protect the innocent, and there is no other way to do so except kill the guilty. Just war and self-defense are examples. In ancient times, before there were prisons, capital punishment was necessary in some circumstances.

    Not today. We don't need to kill. I detest Davis' crime, and I have great sympathy for those who support capital punishment out of a desire for justice. But unnecessary killing is wrong. Society can be protected without capital punishment. I agree that the guilty deserve it, but it is not our place to inflict it.

    They will face a greater Judge.

  7. "Conservative Christians have the same aim as fundamentalist Muslims ...(bla bla)... the hands of an ignorant religious mob with the modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches. "
    You must be really bored to come up with such vivid fantasies, KW. Dr Goebbels would be proud!

    Vivid Fantasies? CrusadeRex, it was only yesterday that you had to admonish one of your political allies for sugesting the death penalty be reserver for atheists.

  8. @mregnor
    "They will face a greater Judge."

    Yes. Fortunately, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon him) is merciful and will forgive his crimes.

  9. I'm sure that mentions of the FSM will be just high-larious on Judgment Day, a real knee-slapper. Let me know how it works out.

  10. Anonymous said ...

    "Protip : your god is imaginary."

    Request: prove it.

    Hint: your personal beliefs and wishful thinking to save your dirty little butt change absolutely nothing of reality. So get real.

    Oh and nothing is worse than an ignorant yet arrogant mod of atheist idiots. That's your territory.
    Proof: Atheism's death toll? +-140,000,000 in the 20th century alone.
    Not surprising for self-serving bozos that believe humans are nothing but "packs of neurons", mere animals with no more value than worms with whom we share a common ancestry though.

    How's that for the great mob spirit there anony?

    You are lost and losing it.

  11. Dr. Egnor

    I understand the sentiment behind not killing killers. I understand that "mercy triumphs over judgment".

    Nevertheless, it is still our duty before God.
    He commanded governmental authorities to execute killers for just and good reasons. Determent only one of them.

    This command has never been rescinded.

    Nor can it ever be while the command "do no murder" remains in vigor, for the sanction of that law must be equal to it's own value which is human life. There's no escaping this.
    While the command do not commit murder stands, so must this sanction, for no other is proper justice.

    Are we trying to be more just than he? More merciful? Better? This would be an insult to his righteousness.

    As far as I can tell, the death penalty has only been brought into serious protest since the postmodern era. (Haven't researched it much more yet)

    Thus, it seems that it is relativism that has demeaned the moral law to the point that no crime is being thought of as worthy of death, the forfeit of one's life for wrongfully taking that of others.

    Yet it is also relativism that claims abortion is fine and good for any reason or none. The relativists - all atheists - are now on the verge of claiming infanticide as well euthanasia ought to be legalized.
    Curious contradictions run through the whole of this most evil of ideologies - if it can even be called one.

    Man has not changed since Christ, unless it is only to become worse, not less guilty - because of the blazing light the atonement has given us as to understand both God's hatred of evil and love of mankind. The atonement has revealed the true nature of evil before our eyes in the most startling degrees.

    Capital punishment does protect the other innocents - permanently.


  12. "He commanded governmental authorities to execute killers for just and good reasons."
    No he did not, because he would have to be real to do this.

  13. Anonymous said...

    GH:"He commanded ..."

    No he did not, because he would have to be real to do this.

    You, poor kid, are a childish wakaloon.

    This is exactly like the grade 1 kid that sneers, "nya nya nya, not true, nya".

    Wow, just wow.

    Alright now whoever you are hiding behind anonymity; using a head as thick as yours, can you prove your position?

    Can you provide any support whatsoever lending credibility to atheism?

    Didn't think so.

    Any other atheist twits here have proof that supports their foolish "no god" claim?

    Didn't think so.
    What a surprise!

    This is where the atheist dupe chimes in with the ubiquitous but irrational, "you have the burden of proof, not me."

    Cowards all.
    Always running away from having to supply evidence supporting their own anserine beliefs.


    HINT: There is a very good reason why the great majority of humans since the beginning to this day have NOT be atheists.

    It's a combination of being smart enough to recognize design when one sees it, a bit of good old common sense, AND having no faith in any "nothing creating everything" nonsense.

  14. @Gary H.

    Prove Zeus doesn't exist.

    What, you can't? You have the burden of proof, but since you can't prove your position, you have FAITH Zeus doesn't exist.

    HINT: There is a very good reason why the great majority of Greeks have NOT be azeusists.

  15. Anonymous Zeus is our Lord said...

    Prove Zeus doesn't exist.

    1. Can stand my answer huh. Have nothing better than Zeusian codswallop to hand back? Right. About what I expected.

    2. The only one talking about Greek myths - which are fantastical and reflect the lives of the sinful men that created them and no make sense at all here, is you.

    Why don't you just present "Russell's teapot" instead? Makes slightly more sense at least.

    Gods having sex with multiple gods producing offspring gods and always fighting amongst each other, stabbing each other in the back, acting like stupid children through petty jealousies etc. really have no place in this conversation.

    Herein we're discussing the one unique incomparable self-existent creator God of scripture, uncreated, omniscient and omnipresent whose wisdom permeates the whole universe.

    3. Nevertheless, let's see now for this Zeus guy:

    "Cronus sired several children by Rhea: Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, and Poseidon, but swallowed them all as soon as they were born, since he had learned from Gaia and Uranus that he was destined to be overcome by his own son as he had overthrown his own father— an oracle that Zeus was to hear and avert.

    When Zeus was about to be born, Rhea sought Gaia to devise a plan to save him, so that Cronus would get his retribution for his acts against Uranus and his own children. Rhea gave birth to Zeus in Crete, handing Cronus a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he promptly swallowed."

    See - Zeus

    Gee I could almost see how this is befuddling to a mind as deep as yours and may actually seem realistic to you.

    Gods sexually procreating gods and born of gods with multiple wives, nymphs etc., & then eating their children may possibly make some sense to the atheist mind; given they have no discernment or logical analysis abilities in their usual condition of acute cognitive dissonance.

    You may imagine yourself - as all atheists do - to think Zeus (or hey Thor while you're at at it - you know the other guy, in tights swinging a hammer and wearing a Viking helmet, riding a cart pulled by 2 goats) - is somehow comparable to the self-existent, omnipresent, uncreated and unique one God of the bible.

    However no one else with an unclogged brain does.

    Now, show us the evidence that the one God whose existence is necessary to all other existences does not exist.

  16. "Now, show us the evidence that the one God whose existence is necessary to all other existences does not exist."

    OK, show me the evidence that Allah whose existence is necessary to all other existences does not exist, and I'll use your method.

  17. Allah akbar said...

    "OK, show me the evidence that Allah whose existence is necessary to all other existences does not exist, and I'll use your method."

    So now anon has converted to Islam? LOL

    I thought you might climbing Mount Olympus in search of Zeus, who apparently lives there with his merry wives and all.

    Well well, still refusing to answer the question posed to you though.

    Alright; two answers to "allah" are possible.

    1. If Allah were indeed the same as the God of the bible, in spite of Islam's many twistings and distortions, then I would not attempt to disprove his existence.

    And though many Muslims like to think Allah is the God worshiped by Abraham, clearly the God of the bible is not the standard Islamic Allah.

    2. Pre-Islamic Pagan peoples worshipped Allah as their supreme deity - the moon-god.

    "Allah was the god of the local Quarish tribe, which was Mohammed's tribe before he invented Islam.

    Allah was then known as the Moon God, who had 3 daughters who were viewed as intercessors for the people into Allah. Their names were Al-at, Al-uzza, and Al-Manat, which were three goddesses; the first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities." ... etc.

    This info is easily found by a simple google search.

    Of course many modern Islamics deny this, as they must to persist believing in Allah as the one true God, but it is nevertheless jhistorically true.

    No "god of the moon" with wives and daughters and brothers etc., can ever possibly be the same as the one unique creator of the universe described in the bible.

    Gods of sun, moon, stars etc. were popular in polytheistic cultures in ancient times and Mohammed chosen allah the moon god as the one supreme god, and Islam everywhere still uses the moon and star symbol.

    Allah was married to the sun goddess, if my memory serves me right.

    There is thus no comparison to be made to the God of the bible though. The moon god allah sounds a lot like the mythical Greek gods.
    i.e. human inventions

    Now, anon, enough of your petty escapist tactics and inane attempts to equate the God of the bible with gods or goddesses of obviously human invention.

    Bring on your evidence that no supreme being exists.

  18. Bring on your evidence that no supreme being exists.

    There is no evidence that one does. You believe in a myth.

    Your "supreme being" is a local Hebrew sky-deity whose adherents have delusions of grandeur. Your dismissal of "Allah" as a supreme being applies just as well to "Jehovah".

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. Anon said

    "There is no evidence that one does. You believe in a myth."

    Rotfl is the only response to such arrogant tripe.

    You really mean that you wish there was no evidence and that all evidence presented to you is denied, dismissed and ignored.

    Huge difference.
    Atheists do this all the time, which is why all atheists are living in denial of reality which is the beginning of insanity.

    In order to state there is no evidence for God's existence, you'd have to know all alleged evidence. Does any atheist know all alleged evidence? No.

    Since you can't know all evidences, you can't logically state there is no evidence for God's existence. This is not hard.

    This means you've already lost the debate in your inane claim above.
    You may claim that of all the alleged proofs you've seen, none are sufficient -in your own mind. But that means nothing at all until you prove the contrary.

    Are you absolutely sure there are no proofs out there, and that you simply haven't encountered them? No. Thats simply impossible.

    Even if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence (there are many), would you accept it?
    No you wouldn't. Another sign of atheist insanity.

    Your very presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God. You desperately hang on to a premise that "there is no God". Thus, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your whole world view and presuppositional basis.
    This is not trivial for humans, and would involve a major paradigm shift in your whole belief structure.

    Therefore, you are presuppositionally hostile to any evidence at all for God's existence, and thus are unable to be objective about such evidence.

    Therefore no one should place any credibility in your logically unsupportable position.

    "Your "supreme being" is a local Hebrew sky-deity ..."

    This is an enlightening demonstration of your profound ignorance.
    Your inane concept of God is childish at best.

    " Your dismissal of "Allah" ..."

    Right. Dismissal of "the moon god", and his wives & relatives, is like a dismissal of the the God who put the universe itself in place?
    Wow. Deep. Deep in your sin and moral stupidity that is.

    Your dismissal of a creator - and therefore of creation itself - is a form of insanity. Get help.


    Dear Gary H.,

    How did you escape from your padded cell?