editorial
Austin American Statesman
The death penalty and
a la carte Christianity
Marvin Olasky
By Marvin Olasky May 2000
Now that I've been writing columns for the American-Statesman for more than four years, some of the initial outrage about allowing biblical conservatism onto the op-ed page of a liberal newspaper has died down. Increasingly, I'm receiving from readers serious inquiries such as this one: "The issue that has always seemed contradictory to me is that the same people who are pro-life for babies seem to be pro-death for adults (the death penalty). How does this work?"
That's a good question, and here's part of an answer: It makes sense to me that respect for life leads to the most severe punishment for someone who deliberately takes away innocent life. The state of Texas showed respect for the life of UT engineering student Rosalind Robison when it executed Tommy Ray Jackson Thursday for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and fatally shooting her in the back of the head in 1983.
In a press conference following the execution, Robison's father said he was "very grateful to the state of Texas for having the death penalty." Punishment and a likely deterrent effect on potential murderers (although social scientists disagree on this) are two pro-life reasons for supporting capital punishment. It's important, of course, that capital punishment be used only on those who have committed murder beyond the shadow of a doubt. I'm for appeals, with examination of DNA evidence. I'm for checking and rechecking the court record. I'm for working to see that people of favored races or genders don't escape justice.
The logic that makes sense to me is that abortion is about killing the innocent, while the death penalty is about killing the guilty.* I see no inconsistency with opposing one and supporting the other. But far more important than my logic is God's: The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for murder not only among the Israelites, but as the fitting penalty among all peoples for such a crime. (This is different from the death penalty for some other crimes, which was limited to ancient Israel.) Christ turned the other cheek to personal insults but upheld all the standards of justice laid down by the Father in Heaven.
Our modern tendency is different. Even some who call themselves Christians say it doesn't matter what the Bible clearly embraces; if it feels right, obey it, and if it doesn't, don't. Many of us believe in a la carte obedience concerning capital punishment or anything else. The Washington Post noted earlier this year that "Americans write their own Bible. They fashion their own God. . . . turning him into a social planner, therapist or guardian angel."
The Post told the story of Ed and Joanne Liverani, who decided to "build their own church, salvaging bits of their old religion they liked and chucking the rest." They ended up with a god who "cheers them up when they're sad, laughs at their quirks." Lynn Garrett, a religious book tracker for Publishers Weekly, called this "an eclectic approach. People borrow ideas from different traditions, then add them to whatever religion they're used to." With the growth in America of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions, we have lots from which to choose.
Some people embrace "A Self-Made Deity," as the subtitle to the Washington Post story put it, and some geniuses put God on trial. The New York Times portrayed Steven Weinberg, the University of Texas theoretical physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1979, musing, "Even if there is a God, how do you know that his moral judgments are the correct ones?" It's a good question, but if God were limited to judgments that we believe to be correct, then God could be no more discerning than we who have become his judges. A God only as smart as Ed and JoAnne Liverani, or even Steven Weinberg, would not be much of a God to follow.
So how should those who say they follow the Bible think about capital punishment? Here's an analogy: As American citizens, we pledge to respect the Constitution. Because it was written by limited and fallible men, we reserve the right to amend it, yet we still respect it by agreeing not to choose unilaterally to ignore the parts we don't like. Isn't it surprising that purported Bible-followers don't give Scripture that much honor? If we praise the Constitution, how much more should we respect something done not by fallible man but by an infallible God? And because the Bible upholds the principle of capital punishment, shouldn't we also -- while remaining open to improving the practice?
Olasky is a professor of journalism at UT and the editor of World. He can be reached at [email protected].
[*emphasis added]
Amen Ministries of Austin� //� Oxbows Ministries International� -� P.O. Box 27683 - Austin, Texas� 78755
���������� www.aamen.org ������������������������������ www.oxbows.com