Stanely "Tookie" Williams

[Rich Stern]

Before Georgia switched from the electric chair to lethal injection, we had a saying for guys like Tookie: "Regular or extra crispy?"



And that's basically how I feel about it. If you wantonly, callously, take another human's life in a criminal endeavor, you deserve death as soon as we can reasonably get done convicting you. Should we be cautious not to execute innocents? Of course. In Tookie's case, the evidence was overwhelming, and no reasonable judicial official found otherwise after more than two decades.



What I find sad is how people like Jesse Jackson and other spotlight whores can associate themselves with an obviously guilty, vicious murderer at the same time Tookie's former (and still active Crips) home boys are saying that he was like their godfather.



I can't even believe his execution is seriously debated. I have to chalk it up to the media wanting to sell newspapers and ads.



Children's book? Hah! Instead, I say good riddance to a piece of garbage who's legacy will be violence perpetrated by gangs for generations to come.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I too find the fact that Jesse Jackson and a bunch of Hollywood types now cry for this guy and celebrate him very sad!



I think we can all agree on that!



TJR

 

[Dale Carter]

Just once, I would like to see the "usual suspects" hold a demonstration or vigil to support the victims of one of these murderers. I would love to see Jamie Foxx, Ed Asner, Jessie Jackson or Snoop Dogg using their star power to take care of the families of Tookie's victims. Lucky for them it would only be the store clerk, becasue Tookie killed enough of the Asian family at the motel that there is no one left to support.

 

[Jim Johnson]

<I>"JJ, You seem to sound like an Evangelical Christian or Christian

Fundamentalist who believes that every word in the Bible is transcribed by

man as communicated by God and is accurate and truth."</I>



I can't help notice that you didn't once once refer to yourself as a

<I>conservative</I> Christian in your reply. That's progress! However, I

can't help wondering why you did so in the first place. Surely you know that

your beliefs concerning Scripture are neither conservative nor orthodox.



Yes, I would call myself a conservative, Evangelical Christian (which is nearly

redundant, but not quite). Now if you could just admit that you're a liberal

Christian (meaning it as a fact, not an epithet), we'd both be out of the

closet. LOL! I posted this previously, but I believe that:



"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting

and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped

for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)]





<I>"I just don't believe that. It doesn't mean I

have no faith in God, nor does it make me a lesser Christian (IMHO). It just

means that I think there are many of God's truths in the Bible, but a lot of it

was "fill in the blanks" by man."</I>



Allow me to re-post my statement, with emphasis:

"So, you consider yourself to be a Christian, yet you obviously have no faith in

<B>the ability of</B> the <B>God</B> in whom you profess belief <B>to see that

his Word is accurately written and preserved</B>."



Note that I <I>did not</I> state that you have <I>no</I> faith in God, but that

you demonstrably, by your statements, don't believe that God is/was able (1) to

ensure that His Word was accurately -- if at all -- transcribed, and (2) to

ensure that it was subsequently preserved. You seem to come to the table with

the assumption that what "people say" about the Bible is more reliable than the

Bible itself -- far from a conservative position.





<I>"My belief is that the Bible was written by man and is filled with parable

and truth inspired by the word of God. My rational behind this is the fact that

there are so many seeming contradictions within and the fact many of the

so-called "TRUTHS" have changed over time. I believe it is what it is, a good

book with many truths that can be used to help lead a good life; but not ALL

100% "the word"."</I>



I suppose that we can agree that the Bible is historically considered to be, at

the

least, the textbook of the Christian faith (if not, then what else is?). Yet, if

your assertion is correct that it is filled with errors, contradictions and

obsolete theology, then it is causing confusion and dissention and leading

millions of people astray. How then can it be both so flawed and misleading, as

you have indicated, and a "good book," as you also say it is? If your opinion of

the Bible is correct, then it would have to be one of the most evil books ever

written, since it must, by your definition, lead people away from God and into

error. Either it is what it says it is -- the Word of God -- or it's a terrible

hoax.





<I>"As for the contradictions, again, take CP, or homosexuality: people on both

sides of these debates credibly quote scripture as evidence in their argument,

so yes, I have question as to the accurate portrayal of God's word in the

Bible."</I>



Your reasoning does nothing to demonstrate any contradictions or inaccuracies

occurring <I>within</I> the Bible, but rather from without. <I>People</I> may

often misuse/misquote the Bible to justify a position, but it does not logically

follow that the Bible itself is in error because of that. It is the <I>person</I> who

misuses the Bible who is in error. If someone uses a lug wrench to whack<

 

[Jim Johnson]

TJR wrote:

<I>"Given all the contradictions and ambiquities either God made mistakes or

created less than perfect work (which I don't believe) or man did...I'll assume

the latter; even if that means in the translation of God's word man made

mistakes or just couldn't understand the meaning of everything he was being

told/shown...either way, its not the unadulterated word of God. I know you said

that it takes lengthy study of the entire Bible and an understanding of the

times and places the stories occurred in order to recognize the acurrate "word

of God". But frankly, that seems to make my point that its not a clear-cut, easy

to understand, unambiquous "Word of God"."</I>



I didn't say that it requires a "lengthy study"; I was pointing out that you

have to apply yourself, rather than simply read a few verses here & there on

occasion or take someone else's word.



So far, every "example" you have given has been 100% <B>anecdotal</B>, i.e.:

something someone else has said <I>about</I> the Bible, as opposed to giving

specific examples of actual errors and/or contradictions. So I am left to conclude that

perhaps you simply choose or prefer to believe that the Bible is full of errors

and contradictions, despite the fact that you aren't actually, personally, aware of

any. That would be kind of like condemning "Tookie" to be executed based solely

on the fact that a third party was overheard saying that he <I>heard</I> that

"Tookie" committed the murders. No need for evidence: the verdict is in!



You have avoided giving <B>specific examples</B> of how the Bible actually both

condones and condemns homosexuality, and both condones and condemns capital

punishment, although these are two items you have already mentioned as being

problematic for you.





<I>"And to that I ask have you considered the following:



1. Have you heard of the Dead sea scroll? Did you ever hear claim that many were

translated, yet some (in part or completely) were not because they didn't tell

the biblical story that man, at that time, wanted to be told?"</I>



You certainly appear to see your faith through the lens of the world, rather

than seeing the world through the lens of your faith. And perhaps that is the

root of our disagreement. Time and again, you use variations on the phrase

"People say." Your approach seems to be, "What do other people say about it?"

rather than, "What does God's word say about it?" It's a convenient, and

typically liberal approach, which allows one, in one's own mind, to do and

believe whatever seems right to the person who rejects the historical objective

standard.



Have you not read that, as the Dead Sea scrolls have been translated (a work

which is ongoing), they have proven the accuracy of the previously-oldest copies

of Scripture without exception? Although roughly 1,000 years older than the

oldest copies known before the DSS, with only a few exceptions (less than a

dozen, I believe), the only differences have been minor differences of spelling

& punctuation. And none of the other differences -- which are also minor --

affect any point of doctrine. Don't you know that the sect of Jews which were

charged with copying the scriptures followed strict rules and invented what was

essentially a checksum system for ensuring that their copies matched the

original?





2. Is the Jewish Bible a more or less accurate recording of the word of God than

the Holy Bible? They both share the same origin, from an Old Testament

perspective.



The so-caled "Jewish Bible" <I>is</I> essentially the Old Testament. How do you

think we got it?





<I>"Do infants that die go to heaven?"</I>



The Bible does not specifically say, but exegetically indicates that they

probably do. Most minimally-knowled

 

[Dale Carter]

For those of you who think that life in prison deters further crimes, can you explain the triple murder orchestrated from Folsom Prison by Clarence Ray Allen? He was serving life for another murder conviction when he got Billy Ray Hamilton, a parolee, to murder three witnesses (not a very effective agent because he was paid $25,000 to kill EIGHT witnesses) in Allen's trial with a sawed off shotgun. Hamilton was convicted and sentenced to death, too.



Clarence Ray Allen is next for Governor Schwarzeneggar to not grant clemency.



From the LA Times (link to full story included)

Allen's lawyers appear to have no stronger argument than his age and condition. His criminal history is especially unsavory.



Allen was convicted of arranging the murder in 1974 of his son's girlfriend, Mary Sue Kitts, who was a potential witness against him in a market burglary case. While serving a life sentence at Folsom State Prison for contracting Kitts' murder, he offered another inmate, Billy Ray Hamilton, $25,000 to kill eight people who had testified against him in the Kitts murder case.



After getting out of prison, Hamilton in 1980 killed one of the witnesses, Bryan Schletewitz, son of the store owner, and two young market employees, Josephine Rocha and Douglas White. Allen was convicted of the three murders, and of conspiracy to murder the eight witnesses.



In rejecting his bid to have his sentence overturned, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was appointed by President Clinton and who has voted to reverse some death sentences, wrote that the circumstances of the killings suggest that Allen remains a menace.



"Evidence of Allen's guilt is overwhelming. Given the nature of his crimes, sentencing him to another life term would achieve none of the traditional purposes underlying punishment," Wardlaw wrote. "Allen continues to pose a threat to society, indeed to those very persons who testified against him…. He has shown himself more than capable of arranging murders from behind bars. If the death penalty is to serve any purpose at all, it is to prevent the very sort of murderous conduct for which Allen was convicted."_ _ _ _ _ _ _ emphasis added by Dale

"

So not executing this murderer cost three innocent people their lives.



In this thread, no one has proven that an innocent person has been executed, but I have just proven that three INNOCENT people, at least three, have been killed because the death penalty was not carried out for a murder with "overwhelming proof". Oh and a parolee was enticed to commit a crime which will result in his execution. Make it 3 and 1/2 people killed by a lifer from Folsom Prison.



Checkmate?

 

[Kerry Matthews]

Ya! U know I made dem take my name off the soccer stadium in my hometown because the sissy girly men there were complaining about me executing Tookie! Who's next???

[Broken External Image]:



I have to skim the last section of this post, as there is so much religious propaganda listed it makes my mind numb! It's turning into a religious debate... again!

The guy's dead, let's move on to the next one! Bring out the electric couch!



"Tonight on Fox... Immediately after COPS & America's Most Wanted! We take 6 of the most heinous criminals that YOU help capture, and fry them all at the same time... LIVE on Electric Couch!! Tonight at 9!"

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JimJ says:

Not being Catholic, I can't say what they might do. I can only say that the

doctrine of Limbo is not found in the Bible, and whatever becomes of that

doctrine has no bearing on the accuracy or authority of the Bible

The scripture escapes me, but doesn't the Bible and therefore God say something to the affect that "what man holds true on Earth I will hold true in heaven"?



Possibly meaning that man's religious doctrine will be observed in heaven? Thus implying that since there are many different doctrine and faiths there are therefore as many different heavens?





TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

JimJ also said:

Your reasoning does nothing to demonstrate any contradictions or inaccuraciesoccurring within the Bible, but rather from without. People may

often misuse/misquote the Bible to justify a position, but it does not logically

follow that the Bible itself is in error because of that. It is the person who

misuses the Bible who is in error.

My fundamental belief (and you need only do a Google search on keywords of: Bible Capital Punishment Homosexuality, to find evidence and examples for both sides of an argument) is that people often DO in fact make compelling, thought-provoking, valid arguments ON BOTH SIDES of a debate using scripture, often the same scripture but with different assumed meanings.



You must not agree with this belief, because it seems you feel there is only one valid, logical interpretation of all scripture.



I find much of it too vague to be that literal. The fact that you don't makes me feel you may actually have a closed-mind (no offense, please).



To read more on the debate (because the word of the Bible is open to interpretation), following links like the one below:



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Dale no one ever said that life in prison was a deterent. The question is if CP is a deterent. Clearly CP cuts down on repeat offenses.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree Governator, that if you are going to have CP, then let's get the electric couch built and kill those that are guilty and are 100% assured of their guilt quickly!



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Lastly, JJ says:

If the Bible is just a flawed collection of nice stories written at the whims of men, then there is no objective standard, leaving us free to do whatever seems right to each of us.

You hit the nail on the head right there.



The Bible IS a collection of stories, and yes, since it was penned by man I feel that it MUST be flawed. But that doesn't mean there aren't truths there and objective standards to live one's life by aren't found within.



The Bible continues to be re-written in new versions and with the meanings changing slightly along the way (e.g. the murder vs. kill example from a mere language translation).



So, from the first sets of authors and henceforth we should logically assume there has been some amount of misunderstanding, misconstruing, omissions and embellishments, no?



I assume such. I am secure in my belief that God gave us the messages he wanted us to have. I am NOT secure that all of the Bible, every last word, is God's word.



I guess this makes me what many would call a "Cafeteria Christian", but I don't see myself that way. I instead am trying to understand for myself everything in the Bible, and to not necessarily take everything literal, or to assume some "intitutionalized" definition (e.g. CP Good; Homosexuality Bad).



Some example; I don't think that:



- the entire world was flooded in the story of Noah's ark. Sure maybe a whole valley or the "known world" of Noah (a few hundred scare miles).



- Or the 6 days of creation were 6, 24 hour days as we know them today.



- Or the story of Onan is anything other than parable (God killed Onan for not impregnating his sister-in-law as Onan instead "spilled his seed on the ground"). Seems like no more clear message AGAINST birth control can be found in the Bible, yet millions of Christians practice birth control today and many Churches preach that it is allowed. And, when last did you hear of someone having the duty to impregnate their dead brother's wife?



We can discuss these and more sometime, but I think you see where I am coming from.



Have you ever read the book: "The Science of God"



TJR

 

[Shawn Hennessy]

This thread should have died with Tookie.

 

[Mark Grumpy]

One story to keep half an eye on.

 

[Dale Carter]

TJR -

Dale no one ever said that life in prison was a deterent. The question is if CP is a deterent. Clearly CP cuts down on repeat offenses.

Allow me to quote your words from 10:10 on Dec 14th repkying to Jim Johnson

But assuming we could put people away for life, even in solitary, then that too is a deterent as they can't kill again. And it is proven to be less costly to taxpayers to do this than to put someone on death row.

TJR - deterrence is ALWAYS in the debate of CP verses life without. For the record, I think that any punishment, life without or CP, is a deterrent to crime. My argument has always been that all sentences are about punishment and CP is the ulitmate form of that and should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes by the worst of the criminals.



I'll be over here in the corner if anybody needs me

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, your right, Dale, I did say that. But because someone kills on death row is a breakdown in the system, not a reason its NOT a deterent. Also, note I did mention "even in solitary"...as the point there is its hard to kill anyone in solitary.



Put them in a cube, lock the door, feed them through a slot for 60 years. But I guess that's not humane. We need "free range" prisoners for the lesser offenders, and kill the more agregious ones. That's much more humane.



I never thought of myself as a bleeding heart, BTW.



TJR

 

[Frank Marano]

100 oh i feel good. lol

 

[Dale Carter]

TJR - the killings I mentioned were not done inside the prison. They were orchestrated there and occurred after another prisoner was released. That isn't a breakdown in prison security, further carnage is the inevitable result of allowing vicious killers to continue breathing.



BTW, unless the prisoner is in a Supermax, there is no such thing as permanent solitary, what with that just being cruel and all. Solitary is used as a punishment in prison.



Regarding the "system breakdown", you make my point that some people are so evil that they deserve to be killed because they find the breakdown int he system and exploit it for their own sick purposes at the cost of others. Had my example been executed, no killings, instead his "life without" directly caused three deaths. There is no perfect system, they ALL have weaknesses.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree there is no perfect system. The current system isn't perfect as we can't guarantee we aren't putting to death people innocent of the crime they are conficted (see Grumpy's post). But then again, trying to prove a negative is impossible.



I've got nothin left.



Later.

 

[Wes Davis]

Sorry to bring this thread back to the top.