Re: James Holmes Verdict Reached

MarcyG72 · ‎08-20-2012

@suzyQ3 wrote:
@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.
If you believe in "an eye for any eye," you do not believe in our Constitution or our legal system. You believe in a form of fundamentalist law that we so loudly decry in certain countries. You believe in Sharia law.

@suzyQ3

I'm quoting the Bible ... isn't that what America was founded upon? In case you didn't know, most of our founding fathers and signers of the Constitution were Christians and wrote it as such to include those sentiments.

suzyQ3 · ‎03-09-2010

@LuvMySpaniels wrote:
@suzyQ3 wrote:
@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.
If you believe in "an eye for any eye," you do not believe in our Constitution or our legal system. You believe in a form of fundamentalist law that we so loudly decry in certain countries. You believe in Sharia law.

@suzyQ3
I'm quoting the Bible ... isn't that what America was founded upon? In case you didn't know, most of our founding fathers and signers of the Constitution were Christians and wrote it as such to include those sentiments.

To answer your question, no, America was not founded upon the Bible. And while some of our Founding Fathers were Christian, others were Deists.

The Constitution mentions God twice; it never mentions Christianity or any other religion. Those two mentions of God, btw, are supportive of the separation of Church and State. It is a secular document.

Besides, an eye for an eye was from the Old Testament. If you're Christian, surely you know that things changed with the New Testament:

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

MyGirlsMom · ‎03-09-2010

HIGH FIVE! suzyQ3

Keep Your Face To The Sunshine and You Will Not See The Shadow

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

@MyGirlsMom wrote:
HIGH FIVE! suzyQ3

________________________________________________________

Another five from me...High TEN!

~Enough is enough~

biancardi · ‎03-10-2010

@suzyQ3 wrote:
@LuvMySpaniels wrote:
@suzyQ3 wrote:
@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.
If you believe in "an eye for any eye," you do not believe in our Constitution or our legal system. You believe in a form of fundamentalist law that we so loudly decry in certain countries. You believe in Sharia law.

@suzyQ3
I'm quoting the Bible ... isn't that what America was founded upon? In case you didn't know, most of our founding fathers and signers of the Constitution were Christians and wrote it as such to include those sentiments.
To answer your question, no, America was not founded upon the Bible. And while some of our Founding Fathers were Christian, others were Deists.

The Constitution mentions God twice; it never mentions Christianity or any other religion. Those two mentions of God, btw, are supportive of the separation of Church and State. It is a secular document.

Besides, an eye for an eye was from the Old Testament. If you're Christian, surely you know that things changed with the New Testament:

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

BRAVA!! Great factual post, suzy

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames

betteb · ‎03-09-2010

@mstyrion 1 wrote:
@MyGirlsMom wrote:
HIGH FIVE! suzyQ3
________________________________________________________

Another five from me...High TEN!

***********************************************************

I'll make it 15!

It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our mission to arrange the meeting. U.S. Marines

Puzzle Piece · ‎06-29-2010

@Cakers3 wrote:
@Puzzle Piece wrote:

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands? The guy deserves a firing squad.
Are you serious?????????? We have a judicial system in place - he received a fair trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. If we are going to start giving judges the right to impose their own belief systems, and that is what it would be, then we have all lost our Constitutional rights when it comes to trials.

There is no legal reason for the judge to overturn this sentence; good heavens what in the world are you thinking??????????

One less crazy in the world. Wouldn't be that bad. He's not worth keeping alive while others were killed by him.

Never Forget the Native American Indian Holocaust

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

One less crazy in the world. Wouldn't be that bad. He's not worth keeping alive while others were killed by him.

I'm sorry you feel that way. He still has a family and may be able to point the way as to why people commit these types of crimes.

betteb · ‎03-09-2010

@Puzzle Piece wrote:
@Cakers3 wrote:
@Puzzle Piece wrote:

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands? The guy deserves a firing squad.
Are you serious?????????? We have a judicial system in place - he received a fair trial and was judged by a panel of his peers. If we are going to start giving judges the right to impose their own belief systems, and that is what it would be, then we have all lost our Constitutional rights when it comes to trials.

There is no legal reason for the judge to overturn this sentence; good heavens what in the world are you thinking??????????

One less crazy in the world. Wouldn't be that bad. He's not worth keeping alive while others were killed by him.

***********************************************************************

While I will agree, the guy does not deserve 3 hots and a cot, it would cost far more to go through all the years of appeals had he received the DP.

Maybe we need to reconsider the terms of incarceration in cases of particularly heinous crimes. Instead of just life in prison, no parole, make it life in solitary, no parole.

It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our mission to arrange the meeting. U.S. Marines

Puzzle Piece · ‎06-29-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
@Puzzle Piece wrote:

One less crazy in the world. Wouldn't be that bad. He's not worth keeping alive while others were killed by him.
I'm sorry you feel that way. He still has a family and may be able to point the way as to why people commit these types of crimes.

After the fact is not wisdom because nothing can be done to right the situation. Mr. "H" in WWII, Hey, HOW about Saddam Heussein - lets all question and study their families to fix things. It NEVER WORKS, NEVER.

Never Forget the Native American Indian Holocaust