That makes no sense. If you recognize that the criminal justice system is not making its best effort to rehabilitate criminals, then there is no way that you could know for sure whether or not they could be rehabilitated given our best efforts.
Actually, just because something doesn't make sense to
you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense period. What I said can easily be backed up by decades of scholarly work and research, by psychologists, criminologists, basic sociologists et cetera. In fact, I don't see at all what is difficult to comprehend about what I said.
1-The criminal justice system focuses an incorrect amount of its capability on punishing criminals, and not focusing enough on true rehabilitation such as re-socialization and therapy for criminals that would benefit greatly from it. Instead, they merely lock many of them up and help contribute to further development of psychological issues. Many criminals come out of jail worse than they were going in.
2-There are criminals who because of genetics, upbringing or both, cannot be rehabilitated. These individuals obviously fall under a special category of criminals. My first point is with regards to those that do not fall into this category. However, it is not so easy to determine whether one falls into the former or latter category, but that is another discussion on its own.
So there you have it. Feel free to say you don't understand, but it makes sense.
The government is bound to the same basic moral principles as are taught in the Gospel, even if it is not Christian. If it were to be Christian, it would certainly be outrageous if it were not following those principles, as it would be failing in discipleship. If it's not Christian, however, it is still committing sin if it does not follow those same principles. Therefore, a government should still be expected to do what is right.
the government is not bound to anything, technically speaking. Yes, the basic fundamentals of most western liberal democracies lies within Judeo-Christian roots, but it ends there. The difference between a secular state and a theocracy is that the secular state has strayed from the original rule book, with accordance to the times and society it harbors, whereas a theocracy attempts to control society with those original laws. Essentially, a democracy has laws to represent the people and a theocracy uses laws to repress the people.
As Christians you must obey your laws so long as they do not infringe on your ability to be Christian. Likewise, it is un-Christian to force people to believe in Christ, better yet have them follow Christian law while simultaneously they do not believe. Democracy is Christian because Liberty is Christian. Within those two factors everyone has the option of not being or acting Christian.
I don't agree that governance has to be that legalistic.
I have no idea what you are saying here. You don't think the government should deal with serial killers and rapists?
I certainly think that they should become one and the same: that the law should be conformed establishing what is evil as criminal and what is not as legal.
do you want to legalize incest? I think many people will argue it is not evil.
do you want to imprison my neighbor's ten year old son? He's always torturing bugs every day, clearly the kid's evil.
Is you name Mike Huckabee by any chance? I'm thankful the country I live in is not run by religious fundamentalists such as yourself, Christianity would suffer immensely.
