Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72
Thou shall not kill shouldn't have exceptions.
|
The actual commandment is "Thou shall not commit murder".
Generally, and from a legal standpoint, state authorized killing (as in war or the death penalty) is not considered "murder" but rather justified homicide. IMO, "Thou shall not kill" is one of those over generalizations of judaeo/christian wisdom that is simply wrong. If necessary, I guarrantee you I will use deadly force to defend my wife and child and, so long as I do so appropriately, I do not believe that God will view me as a sinner or that the State will punish me as a murderer. Thou shalt not kill has many exceptions that, traditionally, have been acceptable to both the state and most religions.
I am on the fence about the death penalty and believe that the circumstances dictate its use. I oppose the death penalty when it is being used for mainly vengence but, when it is truly being used as penalty considered to be just for the crime committed, the death penalty can be appropriate. The question (and area for incredible disagreement) always is whether or not a killing is being made for vengence or justice.
In this case, while individuals are seeking vengence against Saddam, the State of Iraq is (hopefully) saying: Your gross misuse and abuse of power that led to the killing of thousands (perhaps millions) of innocents entrusted to your care demands that you be killed - not to avenge their deaths but as a statement to the world and to all future rulers of Iraq that they will be held accountable for their actions.