In response to:

What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

Glen105 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:08 AM
For someone who claims to be a Christian, Mr.Adams seems to have a strange view regarding the application of the death penalty. If I recall, a man was not to be put to death on the say of one witness, it had to be two or three witnesses. Also, it seems to go way beyond the rule of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as the victim is still alive.
Think Freely Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 4:07 AM
Glen,
There is NO one who is put to death on the evidence of one witness. There are always multiple lines of evidence. Each line is an independent witness to the crime. DNA, special bruises, blood splatters and other types of physical evidence are all witnesses. If we only have a 'he said, she said' and NO other physical evidence it would not qualify for the death penalty.
The_Nerd_Warrior Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:21 AM
If *I* recall, you're referring to laws for the nation of Israel. You're confusing Christianity with Judaism.

The Bible also says no government is in place that he does not allow to be. Trial by jury is every bit as valid as multiple witnesses.

Don't try to obfuscate the concept with your poor understanding of scripture.
Glen105 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:53 AM
There is nothing wrong with my understanding of scripture, at least in this case. If the Bible had meant that trial by jury was equal to multiple witnesses, it would have said so. That God allows a certain government to be in place to accomplish His purposes is not the same as saying He approves of it. By your reasoning, the governments in arab countries and in dictatorships would be equal to our own government, after all, God has allowed them to be in place.

Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.

Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...