Joyful News!

I’m an atheist and even I, godless heathen that I am, know that the quote is either “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12) or “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31), usually rendered as “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” in modern English.

These seem to have the opposite meaning to the quote mentioned in your posting.

Do you have a reference for it?

Matt and Luke. Weren’t they the Bross twins?

You’re the Christian, mate. Not me. 🙂

Yes i missed out three words.. blame that on replying too quickly so thanks for picking that up.

So as you have joined the debate grey area do you agree with that verse.?

I, too am an atheist, and you have made my response for me.

In some respects you are right Joey, but there is also ‘do unto others as they do unto you’. As i said i am a christian and proud of it, but there comes a point when even our humanity can be tested by those whose authority and rules we are told and expected to follow.

I’m an atheist and even I, godless heathen that I am, know that the quote is either “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12) or “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31), usually rendered as “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” in modern English.

These seem to have the opposite meaning to the quote mentioned in your posting.

Do you have a reference for it?

As a Christian surely you practice “turn the other cheek” from the Sermon on the Mount, whereas you seem to be espousing the old Testament ethos of “an eye for an eye”.

In some respects you are right Joey, but there is also ‘do unto others as they do unto you’. As i said i am a christian and proud of it, but there comes a point when even our humanity can be tested by those whose authority and rules we are told and expected to follow.

As a Christian surely you practice “turn the other cheek” from the Sermon on the Mount, whereas you seem to be espousing the old Testament ethos of “an eye for an eye”.

Going slightly off thread but for as long as politicians keep on listening to the likes of shammi chakrabati and her tin pot organisation liberty, there will never be any proper justice for victims or punishment for the guilty. The rights of a human being are exactly that.. to be human and to act with decency and respect towards others accordingly. Petty theft, assault, driving whilst disqualified or any other ‘minor’ criminal offence, especially when it is carried out time and time again is no excuse for leniency, and should carry a mandatory prison sentence of say at least five years… just in the same way that rape, torture, terrorism or murder should mean life in prison. And when i say prison i mean locking them away securely and giving inmates the basic of essentials.. such as food, water, clothes and a bed.
How many times do we see lawyers telling their clients to plead guilty to manslaughter rather than murder, just to get a more lenient sentence. That has nothing to do with justice for the victim, because the victim is seen as irrelevant nowadays… instead its more to do with getting the criminal off lightly, leading to apparent re-habilitation and helping them to ‘re-enter’ society and be given a second, or third, or twentieth chance.

Believe it or not i am a practising christian with christian values.. but until such time that liberal attitudes such as parole, leniency and cushy prisons are abolished then i will not condemn such actions against inhuman monsters such as steven barker. If you are convicted and found guilty of such a henous crime then in my view you deserve every punishment metered out to you.

Although “an eye for an eye” revenge tactics cannot realy be justified as justice, I do not shed one tear for the man.

However, I do think that he should be locked up for life and the only way he gets out of prison is in a coffin. Even then, like days of old, he should be buried in a prison graveyard with no stone or markings. He denied little Peter his human rights, so should sacrifice his.

This goes for anyone who repeatedly commits such brutal and deliberate acts of violence that lead to the death of anyone.

I think that is about right. And I certainly agree that we are too soft on parole. And, although there will be hysterical cries on here, I think “prison justice” exemplifies much that is wrong outside prison. “Give him a beating and the screws won’t see it” is an extension of the same attitude outside prison. If prisoners can get away with meeting out violence because they don’t like what a fellow criminal did or the shape of his nose, what hope when they get out? Assault by prisoners inside should heavily punished, no parole, and rights withdrawn, permanently, for the duration of the sentence.

IMHO anyone who can commit such actions against a defenceless toddler loses the right to even be treated as a human being let alone get the cosseting they get in modern prisons.

Although “an eye for an eye” revenge tactics cannot realy be justified as justice, I do not shed one tear for the man.

However, I do think that he should be locked up for life and the only way he gets out of prison is in a coffin. Even then, like days of old, he should be buried in a prison graveyard with no stone or markings. He denied little Peter his human rights, so should sacrifice his.

This goes for anyone who repeatedly commits such brutal and deliberate acts of violence that lead to the death of anyone.

Who knows but being soft on these scum bags is not the way forward.

Very true, well said

Well probably, but the personal, subjective response is not how you make good law. If the tabloid-mentality readership were making the laws, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. Just look at the braying mobs outside the courtrooms of controversial trials.

Mabye your views would change if it happened to your family or friends ? Who knows but being soft on these scum bags is not the way forward.

Well, life has always been full of paradoxes. I fall into the category of being vehemently opposed to Sharia law AND to capital punishment and avenging justice, here.

Indeed so.

Most of whom are vehemently opposed to ‘Sharia Law’ and decry public executions in Iran and elsewhere.

Nothing like a good paradox on a Monday morning, is there? 😎

I hope i am not alone ,it would mean there are more people who think justice in this country is too namby-pamby. Hang em all;):D

So the answer to justice being “namby, pamby” as you put it, is justice being an excuse for revenge. As I observed before, there is certainly no shortage of avengers here.

BSG-75 if this had been done to one of my kids then I would be more than willing to do this to the guilty party rather than let him have the easy life in prison. Hang em high I say !

What a frightening attitude. But there are plenty of other “floggers and hangers around” so you are not alone.

I hope i am not alone ,it would mean there are more people who think justice in this country is too namby-pamby. Hang em all;):D

The less faith people have in justice, the more they talk about revenge.

Scolding hot water on the bloke, is not justice, its violent revenge (and whoever did it, given their location may not be a piller of the community either)

If you openly condone such attacks you have to ask yourself surely if you would be willing to do it yourself.

The justice of the law gave him life. The justice of the people and all sane humanitarians gave him prison Napalm.
Yes, I would do it myself. Yes, I protected my property when I caught a burglar, I hit him with a garden rake, pointy end. It ripped a chip from his cheek. This was 1982 and the Police gave me a caution, and a private thanks for catching the scum. He’d done approx 150 houses (IGG recovered lead to that fact).
This was before I had kids, if somebody hurt my kids then the red mist would glow and I would kill them with my bear hands, with glee. Revenge? No, perfect juctice carried out by the lifelong injured.