The real man was far from being a hero. He was a politician, with all the negative connotations that word implies, and routinely committed acts comparable to what Bush or Clinton have done. i.e. Not outright evil, but not worthy of reverence either. This movie is about a MYTH not a man.
=====
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul
I don't think anyone has suggested that the film is completely accurate. However, Thomas More was a man of super-human courage who died for what he believed to be right. For that he has gone down in history, it can never be taken away from him. Somehow, in my mind anyway Bush, Clinton, Blair, Brown etc do not inspire reverence. Thomas More does.
The King's good servant but God's first
This is a great film in every respect: well acted, dramatic, well directed etc.
While I admire Thomas for his courage and standing up for his beliefs, I find his beliefs bordering on the absurd. Why would any rational person believe that the Church or some corrupt Pope have the right to decide whom one marries or whom one divorces. It's just another form of tyranny that Thomas supports in the name of fighting against tyranny.
Some folks have trouble distinguishing "tyranny" from "devotion". Put simply: The Pope "asks" his followers to accept his decisions. Henry "commands" it. More "volunteered" compliance at the cost of his life. He "defied" the king's command -- also at the cost of his life. (The difference between being marched into a death camp at gun point and willingly sacrificing one's life to extinguish the camp.) Put even more simply -- it's not the difference between one form of tyranny and another, it's the difference between tyranny and liberty.
shareAh, hold on. Did the Pope "ask" Galileo to not advocate for heliocentrism?
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
I haven't a clue. But, if I had to guess, I'd guess he "told" him, since he was Catholic, not to do it; the Pope's job, after all, as he was Christ's representative on Earth. The same, I suppose, as the Pope would have done if Galileo had advocated, say, patricide as a means to a quicker inheritance. More's problem, of course, was that he was sworn to obedience to both men. Lucky for More he was a good lawyer. It worked -- until the perjorer gave the similarly disobedient (of the Pope and the King's own "Defense of the Sacraments" book) jurors the go-ahead to do what they did.
shareThis started off with "ask" and now we've reached "told". The Catholic Church was just as tyrannical as the "King" of England. If you put someone on trial because their beliefs are contrary to dogma and threaten them with imprisonment or worse if they don't recant...that's not "devotion". That's "tyranny".
How do the angels get to sleep when the Devil leaves his porch light on?
That's a pretty point, and one well worth discussing. But, as regards More, you're missing something, which is -- More's "beliefs" re the king's oath were unknown (he made no statement on the matter) -- "the point" of Bolt's clever narrative. Only after perjory was committed, was the crown able to cut his head off.
On a broader level, there is a difference between "tyranny" and "authority". And, yes, we must be forever vigilant as to the details and circumstances attaching to the difference! If, however, you voluntarily submit to some authority (by joining a church which believes the Pope speaks for God, for example, or signing a loyalty oath to a monarch) you have, pari passu, submitted yourself to their authority. They can "tell" you, and you haven't been "tyrannized", if what they've told you relates materially to their stated principles. Said differently, one expects to be told to cease and desist if one joins a pacifist group on Sunday and, then, procedes to shoot-up a liquor store on Monday. The shooter, in this case, hasn't been tyrannized by the organization of which he's a member but, rather, has reaped the consequences he (should have) expected to reap when he signed on.
The "devotion" to which I referred is in More's signing on in the first place, knowing what to expect.
Interesting question.
Best, again
[deleted]
He was a politician, with all the negative connotations that word implies, and routinely committed acts comparable to what Bush or Clinton have done
Guy_Who_Doesn't_Believe_in_Shakespeare_09:
And as far as historical dramas are concerned, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is much more historically accurate than most in its genre. Compare it to Jean Anouilh's BECKET, or Peter Schaeffer's AMADEUS for example.
Great plays, terrible history.
Were historical accuracy vital for either, you'd have a point. Alas, it isn't, so yours is a moot one.
Guy_Who_Doesn't_Believe_in_Shakespeare_09:
If you want to go on believing that a subliterate actor who never left England during his entire life wrote with such detailed knowledge about court life and about events and localities in Italy (among other things), so be it.
A true politician would have weasled his way out of the gallows. He stood up to the powers that be and chose death over dishonor. Truly, he is a saint.
shareThe patron saint of politicians. If only more of them had his integrity.
The King's good servant but God's first
No if he'd signed the oath he would have still worked again Henry's efforts, he knew he was doomed by that point and pretty much committed Suicide like Hitler did, knowing his precious Church would eventually paint him as a Hero.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
Jared,
With all due respect, that is the silliest post I've ever read. And, one based entirely upon the poster's ability to read the minds of people some 500 years dead. Btw, I'm not sure how Hitler figures into your equation???
What's funny is he wasn't made a Saint till 1935, when the Current Pope was Hitler's buddy.
The Catholic Church at the time knew More was in way worthy being made some kind of example.
His belief that what he did was right means nothing, cause what he believed was wrong. Every Tyrant and War Criminal had believed what they doing was Right, including Hitler.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
Thomas More was a deeply commited Catholic who died for what he believed to be right. He was a man of super-human courage and neither you nor anyone else can take that away from him.
Pope Pius XII saved tens of thousands of European Jews from the Nazis. He directly ordered convents, monasteries and Catholic churches to hide Jews from the Gestapo.
He also helped Jews to escape to safe countries, requesting the Brazilian government to receive 3,000 “non-Aryans” and persuading the Dominican Republic to grant visas for a further 11,000 people.
This wasn’t Hitler’s pope, this wasn’t a collaborator, this was a man Hitler was planning to kill. There is not one shred of evidence that supports the ‘Hitler’s pope’ theory.
It is time to recognise Pope Pius XII for what he really did rather than what he did not say.
The King's good servant but God's first
Sounds like a Catholic Apologist.
More was a Socialist fanatical Catholic, who Burned Protestants at the stake, he got what he had coming, just like those executed a Nuremberg did.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
Hardly. It would have been very easy for More to escape the block had he been a coward like most of those who signed Henry's oath. Six heretics were burned during his time as Lord Chancellor. Not by him but as I said before he believed as heresy was a crime it was right that they be put to death. Let's not get carried away.
The King's good servant but God's first
Signing it would only have delayed his downfall, his Philosophical loyalty to the Pope would have gotten him his competence eventually.
Oh so he way sitting comfortably behind a Desk while it hap pend giving himself plausible deniability, just like Ickeman, so what, fact despite how Obviously Corrupt and wicked Wozey Burning Heretic wasn't the policy when he was the No.2 man in the Kingdom, whether you like it or not that Blood is on More's hands.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
I believe him to.have been a traitor not a hero. I wonder- what if he had signed and kept a low profile until the reign of Bloody Mary?
shareWell said, Tudor Lady! Pope Pius Xll acted.He did not speak directly against Hitler because that would have meant severe reprisals against the Jews and the Catholics,
share"cause what he believed was wrong."
Doesn't that depend on one's point of view? Obviously, that's not the point of view of the Catholic Church, which has honored him with a Sainthood. So . . . "his belief that what he did was right means ..." SOMETHING -- at least to Catholics.
"Every tyrant and War Criminal had believed what they doing was Right, including Hitler."
Am I to understand, then, that you believe no distinction can be made between Thomas More's death and that of Adolph Hitler? Well, I'd put my money on most people's acknowledgment that there are differences between Christian principles and the principles of the Nazi Party, and that those differences are worthy of being noted. Unless, of course, you happen to be a moral relativist.
More's Christianity was no better the Nazism.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
You should be ashamed of yourself! And what an insult to the 6 million people who died in the death camps not to mention the millions who died on the battlefields (thousands of them Christians) trying to end their agony and to free a continent. . . Frankly -- a truly disgusting comment.
shareWar is always a waste of life, even that war.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
I see. So it's safe for me to assume you believe state sponsored murder or slavery do NOT constitute "a waste of life". As is often the case, it's the one or the other (as regards the war we've both previously referenced) -- isn't it?
shareSlavery is Evil, I support Capitol Punishment only for the Crime of Murder it'self.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
I'm very glad that my country was enlightened enough to abolish capital punishment as I do not believe we have the right to take a life. There have been mistakes in the past when an innocent person was put to death. What do you do then, say 'Oh sorry we got it wrong?' I have watched documentaries exploring the different methods of execution and there is not one that does not cause the person suffering. That comes across as revenge, not punishment and as human beings we should be better than that.
The King's good servant but God's first
I support requiring DNA evidence to be required for any conviction.
The Purpose isn't Revenge of Punishment, it's making sure they can't kill again.
"It's not about money
It's about sending a Message
Everything Burns!"
I guess we have to agree to disagree again. The principle argument for capital punishment is deterence. It saves lives. I am convinced of the truth of this idea. Statistical evidence is hard to find or discern accurately but it makes sense to me. I am, also, not sure that a nation whose civil society is based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic is prohibited "revenge" as an acceptable argument for the death penalty (an eye for an eye). The U.S. isn't, for example, entirely constrained by Catholic doctrine though it is, and ought to be, informed by it.
Btw, no legal system created by and for mankind can be perfect. We shouldn't expect it to be so -- ever. Therefore, of course innocents may be unjustly executed. And, yes, we can say we are sorry just as we do to those we unjustly imprison for the majority of their lifetimes.
Forgive long post but I couldn't put it better.
1. Denial of basic right - According to Humans Right Association capital punishment overrules our most basic human right - the right to life. Human life has fundamental value. The blessedness of human life is denied by the death penalty. Live is precious.
2. The possibility of error – Later investigations revealed many convicted individuals innocent which got death penalty in the past, and have been pardoned. Recent DNA investigation studies have shown the same thing.
3. Unfair Judgment - Generally, it is observed that Capital punishment is inflicted unduly on the poor and minorities. If you follow the data of these victims, you will find that the mentally ill, poor and people belonging to minorities form a large chunk of the total number. You can also notice a kind of racial discrimination this happens due to varied reasons. Because the poor can offer very low compensation the defense lawyers are often incompetent, resulting in losing the case. Due to prejudice and bias, poor people, and people from minority sections become soft target for such capital punishments, as unrestricted discretion has offered to District attorney. If any one wants to appeal then it becomes a burdensome process for him often resulting in denial of justice.
4. Lack of Deterrence - The purpose of any punishment should be deterrence from repeating the same act. But, according to the statistics available, the death penalty has not been effective in controlling the homicide rate. The studies have revealed the shocking truth that executions actually increase the murder rate. That means the capital punishment does not deter violent crime. According to a New York Times study, the last 20 years witnessed 48% homicide rate in states with the implementation of capital punishment compared to 23% in the states without capital punishment.
5. The prolonged uncertainty – The validity to the deterrence argument is annulled by the delays, endless appeals, retrials, and technicalities that keep persons predestined to capital punishment waiting for execution for years. In fact, we are not competent enough to carry out execution. This uncertainty and incompetence offers another great injustice. It is itself cruel and a form of torture.
6. Justifying circumstances - Sometimes, persons suffering from emotional trauma, abandonment, violence, neglect or destructive social environment commit such heinous crimes. These mitigating situations can have devastating effect on their humanity. So, it is unfair to hold them fully responsible for their crimes. It is our communal responsibility to show some sympathy to some extent.
7. By giving capital punishment, the family of the victim is permanently traumatized and victimized. They are often punished by their loved ones without their fault, even though they are innocent.
8. Effects on society – Capital Punishment is itself a premeditated murder. This is unacceptable even it is inflicted by state authority as it lowers the value of life. In fact, such act can only brutalize the society. "Revenge is essential" can become a society attitude. By witnessing such acts, our own mental makeup starts believing that violence is necessary to curb the wrongdoings.
In conclusion, capital punishment is a moral dishonor. The mockery is that the very civilizations that have no right to impose it, are in particular leading the traditions of capital punishments.
The economic malfunctions and cultural diseases in those very societies contribute to the violence. So, instead of inflicting Capital punishment, it’s our duty to provide opportunities for all people to accomplish a good life in a rational culture.
As Most Rev. David B. Thompson, Bishop of Charleston, S.C. said, "Capital punishment feeds the cycle of violence in society by pandering to a lust for revenge. It brutalizes us, and deadens our sensitivities to the precious nature of every single human life."
Some have tried to bring it back in this country, I pray God they never succeed.
The King's good servant but God's first
TudorLady,
I appreciate very much your taking the trouble to post such a lengthy argument(s). But I've seen them before. They're pretty traditional as arguments, and they just don't stand up to scrutiny. I'd like to respond to them one at a time but don't have the time now -- perhaps later. Re "deterence", the evidence cited is, obviously, incomplete and based on assumptions not in evidence. Ie., that all other societal influences, attitudes, economics, ethnic composition, histories, etc. are equal in the surveyed areas. Of course, they're not. The conclusion the NYT (a highly biased left-wing publication) wants you to come to is specious at best and deliberately deceptive at worst. One expects this, at least in the USA, from the NYT. Deterence, yea or nay, is difficult for either side to prove, but it seems logical to me that if a man knows he may be killed for, say, burying alive an eight year old girl as opposed to spending 20 years of his life in jail, he will be less inclined to break out the shovel. Not to mention, the parents of the child knowing that, while they're awash in tears, the perpetrator is sitting back in his chair chuckling at the David Letterman show each and every night of their mourning -- and waiting for the breakfast their tax dollars have bought him.
Btw, we must talk about death and freedom sometime. Why are people willing to risk death to secure their own, and others', freedom? . . .
I've given my opinion (as Thomas More would say, shown my poor mind) I don't honestly believe that a man who wants to do that to a wee girl is in his right mind in the first place so hardly likely to give the matter of his punishment logical thought!
As a Christian I cannot condone the taking of life. Full stop. Btw I'm glad you didn't insult me with the usual argument I get from the 'pro-death' brigade, "....if it was your child that had been brutally murdered you'd want the murderer put to death...." Of course I would but that would be my emotional response like any parent. It wouldn't bring my child back.
Anyway, once again we have our own thoughts and beliefs. You are very polite, thank you.
The King's good servant but God's first
You're very polite too and always a pleasure to talk with. You have your views as you say and I doubt very much anything I say on these boards will change them. So be it. Two final comments, however, then perhaps we'll go on to other things:
First, I too am a Christian and there are many circumstances under which I condone the taking of a life, among them -- self-defense, in war (a just war), and to keep an innocent by-stander from having his/her life gratuitiously taken by another with nefarious intent.
Second, re the "emotional response" you speak of -- just as capital punishment won't bring a life back, neither will a long prison sentence nor will anything else for that matter. Yet, you don't seem to object to the long prison sentence -- on the same grounds.
May a lady (assuming you're not which might be wrong!) have the last word?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Moving on :)
The King's good servant but God's first
Murderers have degraded humanity enough as it is. Why further the degradation by bringing back the death penalty?
I'm sorry, but in a civilised society, there can be no room for state sanctioned killing.
Oh? What about killing in war, say, WWII -- on the way to liberating the death camps? Or, in defense of one's own life, or the life of a neighbor who's under assault? . . . Killing is not always murder. Two very different things, thank God, and most people and churches recognize the difference. Lawful execution has never been considered the equivalent of murder in most civil societies -- has it?
shareI suppose it depends who you ask. Everyone has their point of view. This country (UK) no longer considers it as something a civilised society should do, thank God.
The King's good servant but God's first
Well, you're right I'm not a lady. And I agree that "two wrongs do not make a right". One has to believe, however, that murder and lawful execution for same are BOTH wrong. The point is -- our prerogatives are different: I don't believe that the two are morally equivalent and, therefore, I don't believe that both are "wrongs". I'm happy to give you the last word, but feel I need to make that point first.
shareConsider it made. (although I wasn't claiming they were morally equivalent.)
The King's good servant but God's first
I don't know about the OP's opinion regarding More. I just can't see the film portraying "myth" as the facts of what occurred have been established pretty much and verified by history. Something else going on there with the OP and his/her link with More. Oh no is it the "Catholic" thing again???!!!!...;-)... And in the previous back and forth posts, one I think can see the utility of a film on More in that it does a great job in concentrating our minds on a moral view of the universe. Keeps us on the line I think and it behooves us always to be aware of it. If not we may just may be looking at having a tenuous hold on how we answer those sometimes incredibly difficult moral questions which always seem to intrude in our lives. There's always more to AMFAS than meets the eye.
shareJared just went full retard.
shareI admit that war is a different situation. But even then, the deaths of non-combatives should always be avoided in every possible way.
I spoke specifically bout the death penalty, which is (imho), totally unjustifiable.
"I admit that war is a different situation."
Oh? . . . How, given the context of your statement about "state sponsored killing"?
"...the deaths of non-combatives should always be avoided in every possible way."
Yes. And, we try very, very hard to avoid executions of people who don't legally deserve execution too, don't we?
"I spoke specifically bout the death penalty, which is (imho), totally unjustifiable."
I understand and it's your right. But you haven't yet explained (other than your personal conviction) why it is "totally unjustifiable" from the viewpoint of society in general and its lawmakers.
With respect, I think I have. I believe murderers have degraded humanity enough, and that murdering them in return only validates their actions. It sends out all the wrong messages too. It's like they're killing people, to show that it's wrong to kill people. Where i live (united kingdom), in the last three years there have been three high profile miscarriages of justice where the men involved all would've been executed if it had've been legal. Three innocent men dead (it's bad enough they've spent decades in gaol). Not to mention the cases of the Birmingham six and the Guildford Four. All convicted of heinous acts of terrorism, and all innocent. Justice should not be about revenge.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
I respect your viewpoint, and it's shared by many people. Nevertheless, I have a problem with your definitions. All killing (of human beings) is not "murder". Murder is applied to specific acts of killing deemed to be without justification in the eyes of God (the ten commandments "Thou shalt not murder" - it doesn't say "kill") and derivatively man's laws. A difference, I think, understood by Thomas More. Killing in war is not murder it's, well, justifiable killing. Neither is an execution murder, in my view, at least, and in the eyes of many theologians and philosophers over the centuries. An old problem to be sure. But, my friend, everything done by man is imperfect and/or flawed -- including killing in war, self-defense as well as in the application of lawful executions. Do we stop defending ourselves? Do we stop liberating death camps? Do we stop protecting the innocent, because we do so imperfectly and are likely to continue in our imperfections for the indefinite future? I hope not.
share
The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.
It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
Amnesty International keeps an updated tally of countries with and without death penalty laws. The organization also notes which countries have a moratorium on capital punishment or haven't had executions in many years. Currently, 87 countries have completely abolished the death penalty, and another 27 countries do not use capital punishment in practice. All European Union countries have abolished the death penalty. Any country wishing to join the Union must follow suit. Capital punishment is most often found in Asia and Africa, plus the United States.
In some versions of the Bible it does say, 'Thou shalt not kill.'
The King's good servant but God's first
I would certainly question the use of the term "cold-blooded" in your statement. I simply don't agree. Additionally, if the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" claims the same abhorrance for the death penalty, I'd have to ask by who's authority they make the claim? I'm not a subscriber to their authority to make any such claim for me, since I don't really know from whence that (alleged) authority comes. Ditto, Amnesty International, which proclamations and judgements I've had many problems with in the past. All of these groups consist, I surmise, of committees, groups, etc. of people who have "opinions" -- just as we do. their support of anti-capital punishment ideas are fine and should be informative. However, they're certainly not definitive in such cases as this which involve religion, personal philosophy & conscience, and the public will (differing as it does from place to place and from circumstance to circumstance).
Btw, if some versions of the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill" and mean "kill" rather than "murder", they ought to be corrected. "Kill" has been a mis-translation for many years. Though, I've forgotten the precise etymology of the oldest form of the word yet found.
Thank God we in the U.S. don't have the EU to contend with in terms of a membership. Our allegiance is to the Constitution and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore any changes re capital punishment must come from the individual states (the Supreme Court has already said the federal government hasn't the "authority" to make such change unilaterally). To abrogate our sovereignty with a membership in an organization like the EU would represent a betrayal of our founders' vision and, thus, the legal contract our citizens have with their government. At least that's how it's been 'til now. The battle is on here, as you may have heard, concerning just such points as this one. I suppose you can guess on which side I'm fighting.
Ah well, when America reaches the maturity of the European countries perhaps they'll have a re-think. :)
The King's good servant but God's first
There are a few states that have outlawed capital punishment. It's their right as I said. It's a state and not a national issue here.
I hate to agree to disagree again but I hope America doesn't reach the level of European "maturity" that brought us all the Kaiser, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and 50 million dead. I prefer the "immaturity" of personal liberty, the Berlin airlift, and, ahh, the spirit of Lend-Lease.
I'm going to show how mature I am but not making any comment on that. :)
God bless America!
The King's good servant but God's first
Your maturity, TudorLady, is not now, nor has it ever been, in doubt.
God save the Queen! (It's a wise child that knows its own mother . . . and a wiser one that appreciates her.)
"Nevertheless, I have a problem with your definitions. All killing (of human beings) is not "murder". Murder is applied to specific acts of killing deemed to be without justification in the eyes of God (the ten commandments "Thou shalt not murder" - it doesn't say "kill") " . Then allow me to clarify. I find the death penalty abhorrent. It really is as simple as that. You bring the bible into it. Well, i'm not going to base my moral beliefs on a book that's 2000 + year old book, that totally contradicts itself at every turn, and has been translated more and "re-interpreted'' more times than anyone can guess! I'm sure Thomas More would understand (ha!). Theres no need for me to continue here, Tudor Lady has summed up her thoughts on the death penalty beautifully, and i completely concur.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
As I think I've indicated (more than once) previously, you're certainly entitled to your opinion - "I find the death penalty abhorrent." However, any society consisting of more people than just yourself needs a sense of commonality -- an "identity", if you will, to last. And this identity must be based on a moral code and/or principles of living derived from -- "something, somewhere". European and American civil societies (TudorLady and I reside in those communities) were formed out of ideas originating, essentially, with the Judeo-Christian tradition and the ten commandments (which is why I brought up the Bible). Now, if your plan is to form a new society (it's been done before) and call it, say, "Just_Hannah Land" then those joining that society can expect to live by Just_Hannah's senses of approval and disapproval. Those living in this new land of yours should just pray, however, that as they begin their lives there and prepare for their childrens' and grand-childrens' lives there, Just_Hannah doesn't change her mind every second Tuesday about what she finds "abhorrent".
Societies, to last more than a generation, need the identity I spoke of above -- or they'll perish. And it's best if that identity is based upon precepts that come from sources (yes, even very old ones) known to and respected by that society's members. Otherwise, you'll have no more success in Just_Hannah Land than most other dictators have had in theirs, and who, UNLIKE Thomas More's adherence to principle, those adherences were based upon their own ever-changing whims and the expediencies of the moment -- like, say, Henry VIII.
I just looked at the title of this thread to remind myself what the original poster had said. I wonder how we got so off-topic! Well it happens. I can't help wondering if it would have made a difference if this film had been 'all fiction'. It would still have been enjoyable, Paul Scofield's performance would still have been superb and memorable, but from a purely personal standpoint I doubt if it would have changed my life as it undoubtedly has.
After seeing it (several times) I was moved to go and find out more about Thomas More. To cut a long story short (and hopefully not bore anyone!) I now have nine books about and two by him. I have returned to the practice of my faith after 12 years and do believe he has guided me in many situations. I hesitate to use the word 'saint' as I can imagine the reaction that may provoke, suffice to say, I try to live as honestly and honourably as the man I have come to know well. (I don't always succeed but it's a standard I aim for) Had the film been fiction, my life would be dfferent and for that I'm glad it wasn't.
The King's good servant but God's first
This film was more faction than fiction. It's hard to write a totally factual play based on the evidence we have of the man, but there are no glaring inaccuracies a la Braveheart. Or if there are could you please point them out.
As for the death penalty argument.
Killing someone in:
Self-defence... fine
Just war...fine
To protect others...fine
But to kill someone who is already in custody and will no longer be a danger to society when put in prison? That's cold-blooded murder.
Many believe (as I do) that the death penalty comes under the "To protect others...fine" and "Self-defence...fine" categories. In a word -- "deterence". Now, it CAN'T be proven, or disproven, that the death penalty is a deterent. Then, again, we believe in many things which can't be proven or disproven but do so (or often must) based on logical assessments and our own life's experiences, don't we?
sharePutting murderers in prison protects others.
Putting people in prison is an act of self-defence by society.
Now as for 'deterence' it can be proven that keeping people in prison deters them from killing again.
When people kill there is usually a reason. They have become unhinged. They have lost perspective and control and kill out of hate. They have lost all sense of proportion, morality and reality in their anger to avenge. They are mad.
When society kills? Exactly the same applies. There is no logical reason for it.
But there IS a "logical reason for it". I touched on it in my last post. It's the same logic which supports the idea that contemplating a 10-20 year stretch in the pen. will better deter jay-walking than a $20 fine. Kind of an absurd example but you get the idea. Additionally, you missed my intent about deterence: Of course being incarcerated for a period of time will deter further mischief -- DURING the period of incarceration. But, the deterence you're talking about must take place AFTER the murder has been committed. Not too good a solution for the murderer's first victim. The deterence I'm talking about (and the one impossible to either prove or disprove) is the murder that didn't take place because the thought of execution produced sufficient re-thinking on the part of the potential murderer as to prevent it's happening in the first place.
Btw, your description of why people kill is adequate only if you assume there's only one reason for all acts of murder and only one personality type prone to such action. It isn't hard to reason that there are many types of people inclined to murder -- including nasty, self-centered, extraordinarily mean-spirited, philosophically twisted, and greedy people. Personality types and mitigating circumstances are, at least in the USA, taken into account during a trial's sentencing and appeals phases. Very few murderers are executed in this country as a result and, in my opinion, the potential deterent effects of the capital sentence are lessened, thus creating more rather than fewer "innocent" victims.
The deterence I'm talking about (and the one impossible to either prove or disprove) is the murder that didn't take place because the thought of execution produced sufficient re-thinking on the part of the potential murderer as to prevent it's happening in the first place.
...............................................................................
You are advocating legalised homicide on the basis of a theory that it may or may not be a deterrent?
And this is your logic?
................................................................................
Personality types and mitigating circumstances are, at least in the USA, taken into account during a trial's sentencing and appeals phases.
................................................................................
This is exactly my point. It's only the people who are well and truly mentally twisted, who receive the death penalty. Hardly the kind of person who will think twice because of the possibility of receiving the death penalty.
I have more respect for people who just say 'the b@astards deserve to die', rather than those who try to justify it by twisted logic.
Capital punishment is an atrocity.
"And this is your logic?"
Yes, it is. . .
"You are advocating legalised homicide on the basis of a theory that may or may not be a deterrent?"
As I said, I believe it IS a deterent (reasoning previously described). And, EVERYTHING done in law is "based on a theory" -- including the "theory" that incarceration, or the deprivation of "God-given liberty" (another "theory" defined in the Declaration of Independence) is just and proper under certain circumstances.
"It's only the people who are well and truly mentally twisted, who receive the death penalty."
Is that so? . . . In the U.S. we ask a judge and a jury to make that decision based on the "theory" that the accused could or couldn't, at the time of the crime, distinguish between right and wrong. . . I guess, now, we can jettison that idea and simply ask you?
"... twisted logic."
"Twisted"? If so, there's a loooong list of legal scholars, psychologists, theologians (and atheists), historians, and democratically elected public representatives who have tried cases, appealed cases, analyzed cases, written books and monographs, reasoned and debated together the issue over the course of 200+ years who have accepted the "logic" you denigrate in a word as being straight enough to let capital punishment continue as a legal and moral recourse in our culture.
Btw, may I also throw in with those who, as you suggest, believe "the bastard deserves to die"? Hard for me to align my feelings with those who want to feed and house indefinitely, and using the victim's relatives' money, a perfectly cognizant "bastard" who buries alive a six year old girl he's repeatedly raped, then returns to eating a ham sandwich in his trailer while "hiding" from the law. Now THAT, my friend, is what I call "twisted logic".
And so you reveal your true colours at last!
And if and when he dies by lethal injection or fries in a chair or chokes to death in a gas chamber, you can go on eating a ham sandwich...
We are not ever going to agree with one another cwente.
Let's agree to differ.
I thought my "true colors" had been apparent from the start. And, fair enough . . . we'll agree to disagree.
(Btw, I don't much care for ham sandwiches. I prefer to drink a beer at such times.)
You have a hero.
Nothing wrong with that.
As heroes go, he'd be a good choice.
And as a Role Model, you could do far worse.
Just remember. When it comes to such things, flaws found should not diminish. But enhance.
Makes me think it would be nice to have more personages in our modern age of such an "ilk" like More. "Flawed" men like him are few and far between. hmmm..maybe one like him might have averted the recent financial crisis? The thing with More is that he'd do what he'd done regardless of being in public or private life. It wouldn't make a difference. The "winds" didn't shift that fellow.
shareMany of us have, TudorLady, including some who once supported capital punishment until the advent of DNA testing demonstrated the huge potential for error. As of September 2011, 273 Americans, including 17 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA testing.
shareWhat happened to the ones who weren't exonerated? 'Death Row'. The very existence of such a place is an abomination!
Perhaps I'm naive but I believe in justice tempered by mercy, rather than 'an eye for an eye' I will always oppose the death penalty, it is never, ever justified.
The King's Good Servant but God's first
With all due respect, TudorLady, in the USA "justice" IS "tempered with mercy". And that mercy is written "into" the law (Eg., 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter, 1st or 2nd degree murder, justifiable homicide, killing an enemy soldier in war, statutory sentencing guidelines, etc.). In several States, our people want capital punishment.
If, however, what you're talking about is mercy as determined by one individual (a judge or Governor, say) as it applies to another individual (the convicted killer or his victim, say) we move quietly, but inexorably, from "equal protection under the law" as an "absolute" right (justice in the American sense) to what's been called "social justice" by the Left here and in Europe, which is alternatively referred to as "fairness" (arbitrary, "unequal" protection based on inchoate, subjective, nonquantifiable, or principally "emotional" responses to "the moment"). When you think about it, that's pretty dangerous. (Once there was a man named Hitler who's own sense of "social justice" rather than "equal protection" dictated the responses in law of "his own" conscience.); a sine qua non not much different than that which existed under the kings and queens of an earlier era, and about whose histories you're admirably familiar. Glad "that's" passe. . . Let's not have it back again.
One last thought relative to my last paragraph: Kings and queens (and Hitler, Napoleon and Mussolini) are not possible in America -- "provided" the equal protection guaranteed by our Constitution is respected by our courts and, ipso facto, the Left here is kept in check. I'm not too optimistic about this.
When the American people in the States remaining in which the death penalty still exists decide your abhorrence of the practice has become their abhorrence too, the law will be changed. That's how we do things here -- at least for the moment anyway.
Glad to see you back on this board!
I am not really familiar with America's legal processes I will admit. I know they are different to ours. All I can really say is that somewhere deep in my own conscience I believe it is wrong to take a person's life as punishment for taking another person's life. As I said before, perhaps I am naive and no doubt if it was someone I loved who had been brutally murdered I would feel differently initially. We have a man in this country currently serving a life sentence for (along with his female partner) abducting and murdering several children in the 60's. He is begging to be allowed to die. His partner spent most of her last years applying to be allowed parole. She had influential people, including clergy and politicians campaigning on her behalf and expressed remorse for her crimes.(There are differing opinions as to whether this was sincere). As far as I know he never has and refuses to reveal where one of their victims was buried. I expect you have guessed I am referring to the notorious 'Moors murderers'. I know that many British people think they should have been hanged (capital punishment had just been abolished) but equally many feel that they should never be released. (She has since died in prison).
He has been judged to be a psycopath and she was believed by many to have been manipulative and an extremely good actress. Can a psycopath be held accountable for his actions? Should she have been serving life with no fixed term? Would executing them both have been justice for the parents of those children? Cases like these do cause me to reflect deeply on my beliefs about capital punishment. The Moors murderers have been branded as evil monsters but is there such a thing?
What if we do execute those we believe to be 'monsters' that are actually damaged, abused and even sick individuals? I have serious doubts about our ability (or entitlement) to judge therefore my doubts remain.
Sorry to be so long-winded!
The King's Good Servant but God's first
You are never "long-winded". Always a pleasure. And, I respect your convictions. I, too, have my doubts about this issue. Human beings are imperfect, and our judgements, too, will always be less than perfect whether starting with your prerogatives or mine.
I haven't heard of the "Moors murderers" (sounds like a Sherlock Holmes mystery) but seems a grisly business. Re a couple of your questions:
"Can a psycopath be held accountable for his actions?"
In the US, he can, but he cannot be given a death sentence if it's adjudicated, with the help of expert input (psychiatrists, etc.), he did not know right from wrong when he committed the crime. Rather, incarceration of one kind or another. Our laws, generally, provide for some flexibility in sentencing ("tempered w/ mercy").
"... murderers have been branded as evil monsters but is there such a thing?"
"Evil monsters" is the publicly expressed opinion of some citizens, the press/media, etc., and is without "legal" standing here. Personally, I think there are people who may be reasonably described as "evil monsters" -- a kind of hyperbole that comes naturally to people who can't think of anything worse to call individuals who will take pleasure in, or for purposes of their own gain murder, in cold blood, a child. Such sentiments will "always" exist given human nature and the lessons to be found in cultures in existence long enough to be called "civilized". We are not "perfectable" in our hearts through legal means -- only "improvable" in our actions. Laws written in cultures dedicated to "equal protection" (the US, for example) must exclude such hyperbole, both compassionate "and" hateful, so as to remain true to their original purpose -- "justice" fulfilled (as best we can determine) relative to events (what "happened", what they "did"), as opposed to drifting into a ubiquitous point/counterpoint re the backgrounds of the people involved (that "fairness" business).
Oops! I think I'm the one being "long-winded" now.
Thanks for listening.
The Moors murderers have been branded as evil monsters but is there such a thing? What if we do execute those we believe to be 'monsters' that are actually damaged, abused and even sick individuals? I have serious doubts about our ability (or entitlement) to judge therefore my doubts remain.
I heard on the news about a man on death row who
(1) Broke into a home of a single mother with two little girls
(2) Bound, beat and raped all three of them, and
(3) Doused them with gasoline and set them on fire, burning them to death.
Yes, I think there are such things as monsters.
And such a man, sane or not, is not fit to live. If sane, then he certainly knew what he was doing. If insane (though I call that into question, since he knew to plan out these heinous crimes and fulfill them the way he did), then, like a mad, rabid animal, he has shown what he is capable of and what he will do again if given a chance; and, many times, men such as he ARE given "second chances," to the eternal sorrow and loss of the families of subsequent victims.
However, I cannot support the death penalty without equivocation, EXCEPT in matters of the sickest, most heinous and depraved nature that anyone could ever possibly imagine. The man I described above fits that description.
But in most cases of those convicted of first degree murder, I am in favor of life without parole.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
To me one of the most important rights in our Justice System which is being eroded is the right to Jury Nullification.
shareRegarding the topic...
I have to say I've always found it extremely difficult to judge death by execution for heinous crimes. And I have to say I do leave the legal realm and step into the spiritual when thinking on how Christ say expects us to handle it. I'm afraid it is too much especially if one suffers intensely because of the resulting crimes. Yet Christ in that spiritual realm hovering alongside the human is always there, nudging thoughts to do something no doubt excruciatingly difficult. And it is there that Christ builds a difficult road. Some things are tough you know?
deeveed, I know where you are coming from. You and I both are risking being mocked by anti-religious posters but I don't care, I am addressing you and the commonality of Christian beliefs shared between you and me and if they don't like it, they can skip over this post and yours.
The Old Testament makes provision for the execution of murderers. Christians believe that Christ's teachings and New Testament doctrine supersede everything (doctrinally) in the Old Testament, except those principles from the Old which have been carried over into the New. The love, grace, and mercy associated with Christ can also be hinted at in the Old Testament--I'm not going to cite OT scripture just now--but still demands a supreme penalty for the worst crimes. Christ's teaching, in many areas, "lets us off the hook," but nowhere did He address the removal of capital punishment for anyone's disobedience to "Thou shalt not kill." If He was silent on that particular subject, it stands to reason that executing murderers is no violation of New Testament doctrine and principles.
More news items: The 24 year old Iraq war veteran who shot and killed a 34 year old mother who was a forest ranger; and the 39 year old man who had been a trusted family friend, until he became the prime suspect in murdering and dimembering their nine year old daughter while he was entrusted with babysitting her.
In the former instance, it's clear the shooter was mentally ill. There was no known motive in this homicide. Tragically and senselessly, a woman, wife and mother died, and so did this poor, afflicted man, fleeing into the frigid elements and succumbing to exposure. But had he lived and been brought into custody and tried, I can see plenty of room for mercy and clemency in that man's particular case.
In the latter example: "Heaven and earth will pass away" and until then, I will continue supporting capital punishment for perpetrators who kill and dismember the bodies of children. Doesn't matter to me if some psychiatrist or other "expert" is produced in court to testify the perpetrator is insane or not. Many people are mentally ill but there are some things even THEY won't do! If this man committed this abominable and monstrously evil crime, then HE MUST DIE. My emotions say "And I hope he burns in hell!" but my mind says that even such a horrid wretch as this still has access to Christian redemption; nevertheless, he has forfeited his right to live for taking the life of an innocent, helpless little girl in the manner that he did. Let such a one settle matters pertaining to his own soul's destiny between himself and God while awaiting his execution.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
And thinking this along perhaps there is more food for thought here where:
"Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill". (Romeo & Juliet)
It is hard to dispute that that is what the provision of "mercy" intellectually concocts and perhaps helps to push those relentless drifts to execution.
"The answer of the righteous person to the sufferings which the world causes him is to bless. That was the answer of God to the world which nailed Christ to the cross, blessing. God does not repay like with like, and neither should the righteous person. No condemning, no railing, but blessing. The world would have no hope if this were not so. Blessing means laying one's hands on something and saying, 'You belong to God in spite of all.' The renewal of the world, which seems so impossible, becomes possible in the blessing of God."
I found this statement in the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor and theologian, hanged by the Nazis just before the end of the Second World War.
He experienced the evils of racism and as a pacifist, evaded his call-up for military service. Nowhere does he say that forgiveness is easy and to bless someone who has caused you suffering must be the hardest thing of all but (and I can only speak from my own conviction, I have no wish to impose my beliefs on others) believe him to be right when he says that the world would have no hope if we "repay like with like".
The King's Good Servant but God's first
I don't disregard or disrespect your feelings and opinions on this subject, TudorLady. Just so you know.
Even if everyone could be proven to their satisfaction that my take on it is the correct one, is should NEVER be an easy, cut and dried matter; I view capital punishment as a necessary evil, in the same way I'd regard using any force, including and up to lethal, to defend one's self or loved ones.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
"I don't disregard or disrespect your feelings and opinions on this subject, TudorLady. Just so you know."
I also respect yours. Everyone has a right to their opinions, which come from many different experiences and other factors. I have had some not very nice comments on these boards before which almost put me off posting so thank you.
I was once called a 'pontificating, pretentious poseur!' - have to say I quite liked the aliteration :)
The King's Good Servant but God's first
TL...And bringing in Bonhoeffer also makes us contemplate what stresses he was under when he finally agreed to be part of the group that wanted Hitler killed.
Again, some decisions one has to make most likely hinge on excruciating thought.
Yes he believed to be evil was worse than to do evil but he was never entirely comfortable with his decision.
The King's Good Servant but God's first
TudorLady, you piqued my curiosity about the "pontificating, pretentious poseur" crack someone had hurled at you, so I boards-searched it and found where, a little over two years ago, you had made reference to the same incident:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/board/thread/128060056?d=150622564 &p=1#150622564
Apparently, the actual incident is no longer extant. Obviously deleted, somewhere down the line.
It's amazing how words can leave such an indelible impression on our minds. Words can build and uplift, and words can cut to the quick and tear down. I'm truly sorry that people like this can't imagine any other way to communicate to others with whom they disagree than to go trigger happy with hateful remarks, insults and ad hominem attacks. It doesn't matter on which side of whatever issue or controversial topic one may stand, it is NEVER right to verbally attack one's ideological opponents; there is ZERO excuse for such rudeness.
Many years ago, I once read a publisher's editorial in The Daily Oklahoman; the writer and publisher, Edward Gaylord, was a staunch conservative and a known strong proponent for the death penalty. In the article, Gaylord described an anti-religious acquaintence who, approaching him, spoke ill of Pope John Paul II because of the Potiff's stance AGAINST capital punishment. Gaylord, not a Catholic (nor am I), defended the Pope in this instance, stating in his column that John Paul's views on the subject were "sincere and nuanced." Which is what I was reminded of as I read your comments on the same subject. I wouldn't want to disparage you for your views, anymore than Gaylord would have wanted to go on any kind of smear campaign against the Pope because of where each man stood over the issue of capital punishment. I hope some who read this, regardless of where they stand politically or on ANY issue, will take this little anecdote for what it's worth and do some soul searching before they go on another warpath of flaming and bashing others who think differently from themselves.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424908/board/thread/103758044?d=108263586&p=1#108263586
Here it is. I wasn't trying to be smart, I just have a passion for Beethoven.
(Don't know how to make it clickable sorry)
The King's Good Servant but God's first
Thank you, have just scanned it. The person who called you "the three p's" is a jerk, but a high-brow jerk (read, "snob!") I'm glad you didn't let that experience stop you permananetly from hanging around, he ain't worth it.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
He was wrong as well! :)
The King's Good Servant but God's first
Best rendition I ever heard of the 5th Symphony was a recording with George Szell conducting. The 9th is fantastic, too, but I can't call Szell's rendition on the 9th the best because I haven't heard too many other versions.
Thanks for the link. (To make it clickable, you put url between [ ] at the beginning, and /url between the [ ] at the end.)
This person who talked down to you was, it seemed to me, more of a "pontificating poseur" than you could ever dream of being!
I might grade him a few notches less offensive than some of the truly hateful trolls I've witnessed or encountered at these boards, though. He's a snob and a self-important jerk, but not quite as monstrous as a lot of others. Still, if he had directed a jab at me the way he did you, and if I had the same passion for Beethoven and his music as you do, I'd probably be sensitive and a little upset about it, too.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
My last post looks redundant, at least in part; I had made the earlier post in haste and later forgot I had made it, hence, another post.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
Well it looks to me you guys are rational people here on the boards! I can tell..;-)...I believe how you handle yourself and note your thoughts, opinions etc on these boards tells me quite a bit about that individual. I tell you I've come across some doozies out there too.
Nice to see we have some classical music aficionados!...I'm partial to Mr. Handel. Went to see his house on Upper Brook St London. He had nice digs. I think the place had to be conducive when he wrote some of his great music.
Thanks for the compliment, deeveed. To tell you the truth, though, I'm a lightweight where classical music knowledge and appreciation is concerned. I do like tuning in to classical on my car radio, but in the far northwest part of California where I live, the classical music station shuts down at 2:00 a.m., goes back on the air at 6 (all during the time I'm running a newspaper route), and goes to NPR news talk for the next few hours after that; when I'm up and about again, it's more NPR stuff while I'm on my way to my other job at nights. It really sucks that I can't listen to classical in my car most of the time because I'm either at work or else the music just ain't available when I am (gotta sleep SOMETIME).
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
Yeah that's tough when you want to listen. Maybe you should get an ipod and load it up? The it'll be music when you want it! Only thing is in the beginning you've got to take time to get the music on the device. But after that's out of the way you'll be able to listen. Just a suggestion for you.
shareThanks. I'm slower than molasses to join the masses in buying all the gadgets, but one of these days I probably will finally break down and get an ipod :-)
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
I don't disagree.
And yet.
There's always Ted Bundy, characterized by a member of his defense team as "very definition of heartless evil."
With Bundy there may have been both nature and nurture issues at work, but no clear and overarching sense of societal failure, as can be argued in some criminal cases involving lower-class, black or immigrant offenders.
While Bundy spoke warmly of his grandparents in some interviews[13] and told Ann Rule that he "identified with", "respected", and "clung to" his grandfather,[14] he and other family members told attorneys in 1987 that Samuel Cowell was a tyrannical bully and a bigot who hated blacks, Italians, Catholics, and Jews, beat his wife and the family dog, and swung neighborhood cats by their tails. He once threw Louise's younger sister Julia down a flight of stairs for oversleeping.[15] He sometimes spoke aloud to unseen presences.[16] At least once he flew into a violent rage when the question of Ted's paternity was raised.[15] Bundy described his grandmother as a timid and obedient woman who periodically underwent electroconvulsive therapy for depression[16] and feared leaving their house toward the end of her life.[17] Ted occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior, even at that early age. Julia recalled awakening one day from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the Cowell kitchen; her three-year-old nephew was standing by the bed, smiling.[18]
"Politician" doesn’t necessarily imply corruption electric troy but I'll have to look into more about Thomas More - can you be more specific on these acts he is supposed to have committed? Also, drama/theatre is used to highlight certain aspects of reality - just because something is fiction, doesn’t mean you can’t learn anything from it. I think one can at least respect Thomas More's principles to stand up for what he believed in 'till the end, when other would flip in a second.
share"Politician" doesn’t necessarily imply corruption electric troy but I'll have to look into more about Thomas More - can you be more specific on these acts he is supposed to have committed? Also, drama/theatre is used to highlight certain aspects of reality - just because something is fiction, doesn’t mean you can’t learn anything from it. I think one can at least respect Thomas More's principles to stand up for what he believed in 'till the end, when other would flip in a second, and his intellectual dexterity.
shareDon`t you think that you should also bear in mind that Thomas More was also prepared to kill (fact) and torture (alegedly), for his beliefs? And don`t give me all this crap about letting modern day perspectives discolour views of people who lived centuries ago (More`s apologists just love trotting that old chestnut out). His predecessor Cardinal Wolsey was quite content to send so called heretics in to exile.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Thomas More never killed or tortured anyone. He examined heretics (including his own son-in-law) and tried to get them to come back to the beliefs of the Church. When he could not do so he handed them over to the authorities. He was Lord Chancellor, he did his job, and it is not an old chesnut to say that you cannot judge the past by the present, it's a fact, you can't. England in the 16th century was a vastly different place, as someone once said, the past is a foreign country. As for Wolsey, he may have been a cardinal but he was not a religious man, merely an ambitious one. Thomas More was religious. He feared the spread of heresy poisoning the Church. To quote More, "The heretics were well and worthily burned". I do not believe this was gloating as some have said, heresy was a crime, criminals had to be punished, this was grim satisfaction that a sentence had been carried out.
I have studied Thomas More for some years and found him to be honest, devout, compassionate and a devoted family man. His treatment of heretics continues to be the historians dilemma but Thomas was a man of his time and Tudor times can in no way be compared with our own. We may not like More's behaviour but he followed his conscience in all things, even unto death.
The King's good servant but God's first
My God T.L, you`ve surpassed yourself in fawning devotion to this man. Why is it, that More felt the need to burn the so-called heretics, when CARDINAL Wolsey merely exiled them? Answer me that? I capitalize Wolsey`s title, as he was a Church man, and not a layman as More was, and yet he never went to the same extremes as More did. More may have been all the things you say, and more besides. However, he was also a deeply insecure, and complex character. He was certainly no `saint`.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Yes, Thomas More was a deeply insecure and complex character as most if not all of us are. He was indeed a layman but a deeply pious and devout one, something Cardinal Wolsey most certainly was not. Becoming a Cardinal in Tudor times was often more a matter of politics than religion and this was certainly true in Wolsey's case. (Did you read all of my post or only the bits you obviously found distasteful as an atheist?) As I said before, heresy was a crime and had to be punished. We may find the death penalty hard to comprehend but it was the law at the time. As for my 'fawning' devotion, again I would hardly expect you, as an atheist to see Thomas More or anyone else as a saint, I shouldn't think the concept of sainthood is one you would be likely to accept. As a Catholic, I do. He is a saint because he was martyred for the faith of the Catholic Church. He is my Patron Saint so obviously I know a fair bit about him and the cause for which he died. Clearly we will not agree on this as we are coming from completely opposite positions. I see Thomas More in the context of the times he lived in, you want to bring him into the 21st century, sorry can't be done.
The King's good servant but God's first
But you see I`m not bringing More into the 21st century, I`m comparing his religious policy to that of one of his contemporaries (and a churchman). I believe that the Cardinal was a contemporary of More, no? Wolsey may not`ve been the most conventionally devout of Catholics, but in terms of his treatment of `heretics` his was altogether further advanced than More.
The `fawning` devotion (I apologise for sounding aggressive there), I referred to was when you said `Thomas More never killed or tortured anyone`. He has six men burned at the stake, so yes, he did kill people for their faith. As for the torture, we`ll never know the answer to that. But allegations were made, and although I acknowlege it would be grossly unfair to say he did, I think we should bear it in mind before venerating the man.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
In More's eyes, to defend the Catholic Church was a religious obligation. Before the break with Rome, it was also a secular one. The latter point is almost invariably forgotten. The Act, 'De Heretico Comburendo' had been passed by Parliament in 1401. It prohibited unlicenced preaching or books contrary to Catholic doctrine. Books or writings owned by heretics or their supporters were to be surrendered to the bishops within forty days; those disobeying were to be arrested on suspicion until they had purged themselves, or has abjured and performed penance. First-time offenders convicted in the Church courts were to be punished at the discretion of the bishops by imrisonment or fine, while relapsed heretics or those refusing to abjure were to be surrendered to the secular arm to be burned. In 1414, a supplementary Act commanded secular judges and officials from the Lord Chancellor downwards to assist the Church in the task of detecting, investigating and extirpating heresy. Their oaths of office were amended to incorporate these obligations. The Act also empowered secular judges to inquire into heresy by presentment and indictment at common law. Persons attached in this way were to be securely held and delivered to the bishops or their commissaries for trial in the Church courts within ten days after their arrest.
Of the accusations of torture made against More, many were later withdrawn. There were two accounts of flogging which appear to be true. One was his young servant, Dick Purser, whom he had dismissed from his household for attempting to spread his heretical opinions. The other was a mentally-deranged man who had fallen into 'frantic heresies' and lifted up women's skirts in church.
As for Wolsey, I confess I do not know as much about him as More but I do know his ambition exceeded his piety. I doubt whether he was particularly interested in the problem of heresy facing the Church. However, I cannot say why his policy was different to that of More. Except that More cared deeply about his Church and saw heresy as a real threat "an incurable canker to be excised with the surgeon's knife.." In his eyes it was a deadly poison which, if left unchecked would spread and poison the Church. (16th century remember, people were much more religious than tody's secular age)
The ultimate reason for venerating More is that he has gone down in history as a man of super-human courage, a deeply religious Catholic who preferred to die rather than go against his conscience. This cannot be taken away from him, and should not be forgotten. If you are a Catholic, he is a martyr and a saint, but I know many non-Catholics who admire him for his courage, his writings and his deep convictions.
The King's good servant but God's first
The Catholic Church was as much Wolsey`s way of life as it was More`s, moreso given that Wolsey was a Cardinal. People often forget, Wolsey wore a Hair shirt under his fine robes of scarlet silk (at least he did for the last few years of his life). He was also a much more subtle man than More. He realised how counter-productive the burnings were. They elicited nothing but sympathy in the commoners, and therefore, support for the `heresies` they espoused. So he employed more subtle ways of dealing with that heresy. He sent them into exile. Removed them from public view, and you don`t need me to ell you that in the days before mass media/communication exile was a pretty effective tool. Yet, all this seems to have been a bit too subtle for More. He just couldn`t get those fanatic`s blinkers off. Whatever Wolsey`s ambitions were (Pope no less, I believe!), it`s irrelevant. Since when was it a sin to have ambition?
Reading between the lines of your above post, you seem to be implying that the burning of heretics, and floggings (which is just another form of torture in the eyes of most), is okay as long as you`re `defending your beliefs`. Atleast, thats how you defend More`s behaviour.
Okay. More was a brave man, i`ll give him that. He died defending his faith, so he didn`t just kill for it, like most did back then. However, what grates for people like me is, all the negative stuff about More gets airbrushed out of history, and A Man For All Seasons is a prime example of that. The best thing about a Man For All Seasons, is that Hilary Mantel wrote Wolf Hall as a reaction to it!!!
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
But Wolsey was also a womanizer who fathered illegitimate children, engaged in heavy political scheming against political rivals in Henry's court, and used his office to accumulate a great deal of personal wealth - very much against what someone in his positon should have been doing. Offering him up as a moral paragon against More's intolerance is extraordinarily dubious, to say the least.
"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."
As Simon Schama observed, Wolsey's main job was to do the will of the king. He describes Wolsey as, "A consummate manager, and a master manipulator of patronage, of honours, of bribes and of threats. in other words, a psychologist in a Cardinal's hat." Methinks the hair shirt in the latter part of his life was because it WAS the latter part of his life and he knew that up until then his life had been as the previous poster described. Thomas More wore a hair shirt that only his elder daughter Margaret knew of, he also scourged himself. Both practices he adopted during his four year stay with the Carthusian monks. They seem odd practices to us maybe and Thomas did not like anyone knowing about them but they were a mark of piety and devotion, as was his extensive reading of scripture and the Church fathers.
I am not claiming that the floggings were ok. I was saying that the accounts of More's supposed 'tortures' have been grossly exaggerated. I'm quite sure it was common practice in those days to flog servants for all sorts of reasons. I'm not going into the burning of heretics as I think I've already explained the policy of the time.
In the words of Tudor historian John Guy, A Man for all Seasons is a whitewash in that it was based on the book about More's life written by his son-in-law William Roper which was meant to show that More was a man of singular virtue who should be canonised. It does not mention More's dealings with heretics, so in that respect you are correct. However, the play and subsequent film depict More's relationship with Henry in respect of the 'great matter', ie divorce and how the relationship deteriorates as Henry is unable to get More onside. It shows how desperate he is to acheive this as More is widely known to be a man of honesty and integrity unlike others such as Cromwell, Wolsey and Rich who are only too willing to dance to Henry's tune in the hopes of reaping the rewards. If you want a balanced view of Thomas More I recommend the biographies by John Guy and Peter Ackroyd, they are both excellent (although Guy gets a bit academic and is fond of long words, I had to go and look up what a shibboleth was!)
The King's good servant but God's first
Theres` a brilliant line in AMFAS, I think its spoken by the Duke of Norfolk. "Every second bastard born in this realm, is fathered by a priest" (i`ll dig my dvd out and check that, but I think I`m right). And that just about sums it up. Wolsey was not a lone. And there`s no eveidence that he was a womaniser, as far as I know he simply kept a long term mistress.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
And your point would be?
Wolsey, although a cardinal, was not an honest man. He took the revenues from being Archbishop of York and the wealthy Abbey of St. Albans, even though he never went to these places. He took bribes, if they were big enough, and spent this money on his personal property. He was also a womaniser and had at least two children, for whom he found good positions in life. People soon became angry at these abuses, especially when they were seen in the light of the general state of the Church at this time
The King's good servant but God's first
My point is that they were all at it, so that hardly makes Wolsey uniquely corrupt among churchmen of his time.
And no, I`m not saying that Wolsey was a paragon of virtue. I`m aware of his corruption. However, I also believe that he is another of the great Tudor personalities that has been misguidedly maligned over the centuries. Y`know, its like `saint` Thomas More gets away with burning people, yet Wolsey is villified for keeping a mistress. When you look at the two, niether are particularly pleasant, but one is infinitely more deadly than the other.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
You're still doing it aren't you? Still looking at 16th century beliefs, laws and practices through 21st century eyes. I know from previous posts that you are against the death penalty, so am I, but if you'd said that to someone from Tudor times they would have thought you were mad. Thomas More did not burn people, he did his job as Chancellor and questioned them. If he could not persuade them to recant he gave them over to the relevant authorities for sentencing. Yes he knew what would happen, but as I've already said heresy was a crime which was punishable by death. Obviously in this multi-faith (or no faith) age that is completely foreign to us but THAT WAS THE LAW OF THE TIME whether we like it or not. Wolsey was NOT a devout churchman, much more interested in doing Henry's bidding and amassing wealth for himself. I doubt whether he was bothered by what was happening in the church. I'm not vilifying him merely pointing out that his interests lay elsewhere.
The King's good servant but God's first
I`ll type this slowly, in the hope that you`ll perhaps read it slowly. No..I`m...not...comparing...my...modern...beliefs...to...More`s... I`m comparing... More`s... policy... (regarding... Heretics)... to... his ..contemporary... (Wolsey).Like him or loathe him, Wolsey dealt with them (heretics, that is)far more effectively, and far more humanely. IT WAS THE LAW WHEN WOLSEY WAS CHANCELLOR ,YET HE STILL FOUND A WAY AROUND IT. Why couldn`t More do the same? After all, he was such a devoted humanist?
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
I don't think there's any call to be rude, we all have our point of view and let's face it, you and I are never going to agree. Wolsey was (as I've said a few times now) Greedy, devious, boastful and proud. He was more concerned with personal gain than with the state of the church he was nominally a cardinal of. Ergo, he wasn't particularly bothered with heresy or those accused of it, therefore he didn't bother with how or if they were punished.
Thomas More was the exact opposite of Wolsey. Devout, charitable, pious and very concerned with the unity of the church. He saw the spread of heresy leading to the development of schisms and sects (and he was right, just how many protestant churches are there?) He did his best to rid the church of it. I'm not particularly fond of his methods but he did what he thought was right according to the law. Wolsey was never interested in the law, unless he could exploit it to benefit himself.
The King's good servant but God's first
"...he did what he thought was right according to the law."
I think that is the key. Another attribute of More was his consistency. Seems like very little but it's really a very lot -- and an essential difference between More and Wolsey. More was a man of principle. He held sacred the principles of the church, but he also held sacred the principle of the law (his conversations with Roper). To be a man of principle ("a man for all seasons", if you will) you must be unmoved by expediency, including the temptations of emotion a lot of the time (self-gratifying OR generous emotion). More sought to find the means of "escaping" (as he confided to Margaret) WITHIN the law. He never would have sought to find his way "AROUND the law" as a previous poster suggested he should have. That was Wolsey's special talent and not available to More when filtered, as it were, through More's conscience. A key difference between More and Wolsey ... and an important difference between a saint and a politician (within or outside of the church).
Thomas should have went to the wedding. I always thought it rude of him not to have gone. Just show up, shake the King's hand, tell him what a lucky man he is, have a quick drink and then get the hell out of there. Sheesh, would that have been so hard? Probably would have saved his life.
What's more interesting is ten months after his execution, Anne was beheaded. Events happened fast and furious way back in the day.
He wasn't being rude. If he had gone to the wedding it would have seemed like he approved of Henry's divorce and re-marriage which he did not. Whatever else Thomas was or was not, he was not a hypocrite. As for saving his life, possibly, but his conscience was more important to him than that. He was 'the king's good servant but God's first.' Always.
The King's Good Servant but God's first
No, he wasn't, but he was hardly a moral paragon as you seem to imply. His abuse of his position for personal wealth and power is more the issue here, though.
"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."
"I don't think there's any call to be rude,"
Yes, I`m sorry. I shouldn`t have posted that.
For some reason, I do get riled on this subject (as you may have noticed).
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
I think we both have strong opinions. You are the first atheist I've 'known' and you're not a bit like Richard Dawkins who I can't abide! Not for his atheism but his arrogance and rudeness. I once saw him on tv being very rude to Robert Winston and the man is SO opinionated just the sound of his voice makes me wince! I love Thomas More, you loathe him, which given the respective positions we're both coming from is hardly surprising. I hope to meet him one day, if I do I hope you're there too and he can defend himself, if I don't, well then it's all a bit academic! See you on 'The Tudors'! :)
The King's good servant but God's first
Thanks Tudor Lady, but after the life i`ve lead, I somehow doubt i will be there, i`ll be down in the other place, lol!!
Richard Dawkins is fantastically rude to just about everyone he meets, and who dares to disagree with him. I loved The God Delusion, but my word, I wish he`d leave it there and learn to button his lip occaisionally. He does more harm than good.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Hey great discussion! I read through all the posts and it was very good. All getting in your ripostes with the cut and thrust! Ah, the 16th century lives!
You know I do come away from the discussion having an appreciation for both living a religious life in context with the political. One thing that be said I think is that really these individuals look to be both sinner and saint at the same time in the roles they played. They are not perfect but rather imperfect men who were relentless bulls (er papal????..;-)) in trying to achieve what they believed to be God's work. Really I don't think one or the other should be "loathed". That's a bit strong in my opinion. In fact we should look at them as great men who had passionate beliefs dealing with the great problems of their time. And as in the 21st, life then wasn't easy at least for men of their type!
TudorLady, a champion of Thomas More and a devout foe of capital punishment (i.e., state murder) observes;
"To quote More, 'The heretics were well and worthily burned'."
Might one reasonably assume this to be an endorsement of capital murder in the case of heresy or merely a trait of the one time barbarism of the old and most benevolently enlightened British empire.
And not to excuse us young provincials we didn't just burn, we also drowned. We were well taught by our older, wiser and gentler European sophisticates.
Lest I sound sanctimonious and holier than thou allow me to say that I too oppose the death penalty for its inhumanity, lack of deterrence, social unfairness, prohibitive costs, torturous delays and capriciousness. But, I do find an occasional exception, to wit, Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma bomber.
As an atheist I suspect I am even more in opposition than you, as I am one who devoutly believes that what you see is what you get. We live this oh so short life and then it's all over.
Hmmm . . . "state murder"?
Hard to make that stick. "Executions" have, for millenia, been distinguished from "murder" in every civilized culture I am aware of in ways both linguistic and in practice. Sorta like killing in "self-defense". If you're opposed to executions because they are "state murders", are you opposed similarly to distinguishing killing your parents for an inheritence from killing as the only means to your own survival? If you are, a tip of the hat to you for your consistency.
"I too oppose the death penalty for its inhumanity ..."
Let's just say it's no "less" humane than the deed which was performed by the subject of the execution. Eg., Timothy McVeigh?
" ...lack of deterrence ..."
Impossible to determine.
" ...social unfairness ..."
Who said society "is", or even "can" be, fair, though it tries? Seems to me, that it is more unfair that the perpetrator of a murder (generally it's an aggravated or mass murder offense that's punishable by death) should live while the victim(s) of his offense should die. And, if you're referring to the old saw of "racial inequality" on death row, you'll find that the statistics (available on state's web-sites) simply do not bear that out.
"... prohibitive costs ..."
"Prohibitive"? Not so "prohibitive" it seems that executions have been, thus, prohibited. And, they're certainly not more costly than housing a man for 20 or 30 years of his life in a prison facility.
"... torturous delays" ..."
Outside of the mandatory appeals (to be extra sure the conviction was correct) the torturous delays are always initiated by the condemned himself -- or by guys like you.
"... and capriciousness."
The average wait from conviction to execution is 14 years, occasioned by those "torturous delays" which include multiple appeals, post-conviction investigations, opportunities for clemency by governors and presidents, multiple and limitless counsel (often state funded), public protests, passionate appeals in the media and press, and even the use of bribes to witnesses to recant testimony (a lot of that going on these days). Ahh, hardly a "capricious" bone left to pick wouldn't you say?
"... I do find an occasional exception, to wit, Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma bomber."
Well, there goes the consistency. Can you be persuaded to believe the same about Lawrence Brewer (being executed almost as I write this for dragging to death James Byrd a Black man in Texas solely because he was Black)? . . . In the final analysis, then, it seems the only difference between you and society at large is the "number" of exceptions you're willing to allow.
And your point would be?
The King's Good Servant but God's first
Well, I think there are "several" points in my post. Either they are not clear (I'm not always clear), or you're looking for what I see as the sine qua non of the original poster's post and my response to that. If the latter, here goes: The poster's coining of the term "state murder" is at the "core" of what he has said, and it has no meaning except as an Orwellian "newspeak"-like expression constructed to maneuver a reader into a closer proximity to the same philosophical position the poster himself has taken. The term has "built into it" the certitude that legal executions (presumably in Western democracies "today") are the "same" as murder -- which is, after all, "THE point at issue". Thus, the term is neither an objectively honest one nor is it descriptive of anything that is going on in my country - the USA - with regard to what we refer to as "capital punishment". The rotten "core", if you will, of what otherwise could have been an honest and passionate argument. . . Okay?
Look forward, always, to your posts btw. Would love to see more of them.
I was actually asking Logicalskeptic what his/her point was, sorry should have made that clear.
The King's Good Servant but God's first
'State murder'...I can see a scene with that phrase with Scofield easily noting in his distinctive voice, "Oh is that what I am charged with??? I'd say those who are having a hard time with his attack on heresy and heretics may also be going into polemics when discussing that item in his political career. Was he really that bad? He was a Church man guarding "truth" or his coneption of the truth. I think we have to understand the man carefully before assessing him as being involved in what's called 'state-murder'.
shareWhat kind of "politician" would take on a king on a matter he could have easily avoided?
The parallels of the dispute between Henry and Thomas and the dispute between Herod and John the Baptist are not lost on us; nor were they lost to the people of the time.
Thomas' death sentence actually called for him to be hanged, drawn and quartered, the standard punishment for high treason.
Henry commuted the sentence to beheading, which, naturally, only heightened the parallel between him and John the Baptist.
Hope and Change™
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/452614.stm
I just watched a documentary about Myra Hindley (one half of the 'Moors Murderers' I referred to before) She died in prison in 2002 yet remains Britain's most hated woman. Whilst in prison she campaigned vigorously to be allowed parole and had many supporters. I believe she was reviled more than her partner Ian Brady because she was a woman and lured the children that were subsequently murdered by him. This 'evil' pair took photographs of their young victims and even recorded one little 10 year old girl crying for her mummy as they tortured her. (Which still haunts anyone who heard it, apparantly the tape is locked in a vault in a secret location it is so distressing)
I have stated my opposition to the death penalty but as I watched this programme I tried to imagine myself as one of the parents of these murdered children. One little boy still lies buried somewhere on those moors and his mother (now elderly) travels there with flowers regularly. Hindley and Brady have revealed where the other children lay but not this one little boy. I was in tears as I watched and began to wonder again about the nature of evil. Were this pair evil? Most people in Britain think so. Were they psychopaths and therefore not responsible for their actions? If she truly repented before she died will she be forgiven? Brady is still alive and wants to die. He is being force fed as he refuses to eat. Should that happen? I will admit I am no longer as sure as I thought I was. It is so hard to believe that any 'sane' person would do what they did. If it had been one of my children.......?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/452614.stm (Brady)
The King's Good Servant but God's first
Were this pair evil? Most people in Britain think so. Were they psychopaths and therefore not responsible for their actions?
I found it interesting that Lord Longford a politician who was very interested in penal reform wanted to free Hindley, the convicted child killer. The joke to this issue was Lord Longford? Rather it was Lord Wrongford. Where is that guy now?
I’m a late comer to this discussion but read it through last night with considerable interest. I’m myself a national of a country where capital punishment was abolished over a hundred years ago. Being a Christian believer myself, I’m always puzzled at the way Christians in my country almost to a man are convinced that capital punishment was somehow made void by Christ’s teachings, while there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support this. Quite the opposite, as St. Paul is very clear about the authorities being appointed by God to keep the order and protect the innocent, and not bearing the sword in vain but to punish evildoers, who are told they should dread them.
And up to the last century this was always clear to Christians. They knew full well that since this life is but for a short while but eternity is forever, taking a man’s life is not the worst evil you can do to him, but rather to corrupt him spiritually and denying him eternal life. Thus it was so important to give condemned criminals a chance to be at peace with their maker before execution, and he who denied them that would have to answer for it before God. Far better to pay for your earthly crimes here and be at peace with God than having your crimes still un-reconciled when you die.
When modern Christians say they abhor capital punishment (and even serving in wars) because this is against the New Testament, they are not moved by the teachings of Christ or of Scripture but by the zeitgeist and secular humanism, which has influenced modern Christianity (and many of its leaders) more than we may understand.
I’m certain of the deterrent effect of the existence of capital punishment. Not that it should be dealt out lightly; it should only be used in especially gruesome cases. But the fact of its very existence might stay the hand of the murderer-to-be and save many a victim from death, and himself from becoming a murderer. Withholding this from him is not humane but cruel.
I’m equally certain that authorities who let out a condemned murderer who kills again, will be held fully accountable for the life of these victims. Probably not by any earthly justice, but by a far more righteous and also a more severe one. They are indeed part of the authorities appointed by God to protect the meek, and if they are flaunting this responsibility they should be trembling in their boots very much. I know I would.
[deleted]