Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-does-it-work? dept.

Ohio will adopt a new (classic) execution protocol and resume executions on Jan. 12, 2017:

The state of Ohio plans to resume executions in 2017 with a new three-drug combination. The state will use the drugs midazolam, rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride. To make the switch the state is expected to adopt [a] new execution protocol by the end of the week. The state hasn't executed anyone since January 2014.

The new drug mix is really a return to one the state used for 10 years. "The department used a similar combination from 1999 to 2009, and last year, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the use of this specific three-drug combination," said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Ohio has had trouble getting drugs to use for lethal injections in part because pharmaceutical companies don't want their medical products used for killing people. Two years ago European pharmaceutical companies blocked further sales on moral and legal grounds. Ohio has looked for other options, but all have obstacles.

For background, Wikipedia offers: Midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium chloride.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM

    by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM (#409918)

    and still "do not kill" is part of the commandments. I would say the book is a bit inconsistent.

    Or your exegesis is just naive (if you're sincere) or extremely uncharitable if you're not. Ask just about any Christian and they'll let you know that large parts of the Old Testament was intended for the place and time that was the Israeli theocracy in the ancient Middle East. That's the reason Christians have no problems eating pork despite it being clearly forbidden in the OT. You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of how bad Christianity is - unless you're just being flippant and trying to score some "Touché"-moderations.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Farkus888 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32AM

    by Farkus888 (5159) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32AM (#409921)

    As I already stated in this thread... Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The words of Jesus himself. As an obvious apologist, I hope you aren't wearing mixed fibers.

    • (Score: 2) by MadTinfoilHatter on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:23PM

      by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:23PM (#409951)

      And this in turn illustrates the point I made about not prying a verse out of context and single-mindedly hammer that. This is true even if it's something Jesus himself said. Since you seem to have taken a liking for Matthew, let's look at another passage from there:

      At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the sabbath day. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw, they said to Him, Behold, your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day. But He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? But I say to you that One greater than the temple is in this place. But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty.

      (Matt. 12:1-7)

      Here we also have Jesus speaking, and through the same gospel author, no less - and it clearly seems to contradict your rigid interpretation of 5:18, (which is not the same thing as contradicting itself). Someone reading the Scriptures in order to find out what they mean, lets Scripture interpret Scripture (and this hermeneutic principle extends for beyond the Bible, BTW). Of course if you're only reading to find a reason to reject it, you will - a principle that also extends far beyond the Bible.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:32PM (#409956)

        If you constantly have to do all these 'It's just metaphorical!' and 'You're taking it too literally!' mental gymnastics for passages in the bible that you don't like, maybe the bible is, at best. indecipherable garbage. Have you considered that possibility? There are countless denominations of Christianity, and many rigidly interpret certain passages that others do not. What this indicates is that what is meant to be metaphorical and what isn't is hardly obvious, so I can't believe you can play these dishonest interpretation games with a straight face.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:04PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:04PM (#410021)

          So if it's not blindingly obvious, such that nobody can ever interpret it two different ways, it's all crap and pointless? Gee thanks.

          You show me a book and I'll show you metaphors in it.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:54PM (#410200)

            So if it's not blindingly obvious, such that nobody can ever interpret it two different ways, it's all crap and pointless? Gee thanks.

            The problem is that the bible seems to contain a lot of barbaric and contradictory verses, which are then dishonestly disregarded by its proponents who scream things such as 'Metaphor!' even when there is no evidence that that's actually the case. I have to wonder what the point of the bible is if each Christian is just going to concoct their own fantasies about what the bible says, which often conveniently seem to confirm their existing worldview? They may as well just write their own fairy tale book.

            You show me a book and I'll show you metaphors in it.

            The problem isn't that there are metaphors, and your attempt to portray my comment this way is disingenuous. The problem is that the bible's proponents seem to deflect all criticism by claiming there are metaphors and such where none appear to exist. If the bible is a book with any truth value whatsoever, and if it was indeed inspired by the word of god, god utterly failed to communicate his message. If you're going to have rules, you have to make them clear. Thankfully our laws are not written as poorly as the bible.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM (#410248)

              It's a 2000-year-old religion. *You* try being around that long and unambiguous, skippy.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM (#410343)

            It is supposed to be the word of god. Whilst communicating clearly to everyone might be difficult for a mortal author, it should be trivial for an omnipotent deity.

            If the Bible isn't the word of god, where is its value?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:48AM (#409924)

    Even if that were true (in the New Testament it says that Jesus did not intend to abolish all the OT rules), why is somehow alright for a supposedly almighty being to subject people--anyone, and at any time period--to truly barbaric and unethical rules? Why do you feel as if that somehow makes Christianity look better? "Oh, we only committed atrocities in the past, which was okay because the people of that time deserved it! But it's all better now." If the Christian god was portrayed as a barbaric thug then, I see no reason to think any better of that character now.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:21PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:21PM (#410108) Journal

      You're kinda missing an important point. God the Father may or may not be a barbaric thug, but christians rely on Jesus, the Son, as their saviour. I don't want to get into the whole split personality thing, with the trinity and all, but at the very least, the Son and the Father are different faces of the same personna.

      Jews and Muslims rely on Yahweh (or Allah) for whatever salvation they expect. Christians rely on a different person or personna.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM (#410206)

        I don't see why that's important. God - the supposed creator of everything - is portrayed as a murderous thug in the bible. You can't pretend that the god of the bible is totally irrelevant, and Christians talk about him all the time. It's not as if the bible claims that Jesus saved everyone by destroying the evil demon king known as god.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:43AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:43AM (#410472) Journal

          "I don't see why that's important."

          I can't make you see why that's important, but I can't make you see ultraviolet either. Ultraviolet exists, and there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. The Son said words to the effect, "There is no way to the Father, but through me." To lazy to look up the actual scripture right now, sorry.

  • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:12PM

    by moondrake (2658) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:12PM (#409949)

    Actually, I consider myself some sort of Christian, but most other Christians would probably not consider me as such.

    I would for instance tell you that the whole book (old and new) is written by good and bad people, and intended for a certain place and time, and not free from propaganda either. The comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the deeper point of the post was that I feel killing people for crimes in modern societies does not make sense. And I also do not think its the (morally) right thing to do.

    The ten commandments are pretty central to most branches of Christianity. If it was no longer relevant, why would they even include that part in e.g the Catholic bible? Various churches are happy enough to cherry-pick lines from OT versus to condemn certain things. Forbidding pork was simply not useful for people within the Church.

    Several parts in the NT strongly supports and endorses the "not kill/murder", I could have selected one of those. And there is a lot of emphasis on forgiving, sure. And yet, there are other passages that say we should kill certain people (take a look at Romans) for things that I do not feel are crimes. Obviously I _have_ to take things out of context if I am going to compare different parts of the bible because the book is not a story set in one context (and written by different people). As a moral compass, this is going to cause problems: which verse takes precedence. Is this consistency?

    So in summary I still think the book is inconsistent, and an be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps that was the point. But there is nothing naive or uncharitable about that.

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:14PM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:14PM (#409966)

      "Actually, I consider myself some sort of Christian, but most other Christians would probably not consider me as such."

      and THAT is an issue right there: the mainstream of xtianity has essentially abandoned xtianity in favor of social issues and damning *everyone else* to perdition (not to mention wishing to invoke their own (you know, 'correct') version of 'sharia' law)...
      i would *think* (setting aside any issues of 'faith' and other bullshit) that following the teaching and tenets of the bible/jesus/xtianity (much like nearly ANY religion which has the same basic human morals that even atheists share) would lead one to being a more peaceful, NOT warlike person... unfortunately, there are too few xtians who appear to share that outlook; i guess they enjoy the smiting too much...
      it amazes me just how many self-professed xtians GLADLY sign up for CAESAR's army to murder on behalf of Empire...
      wtf ? ? ?
      rendering unto caesar = murdering for Empire ? ? ?
      and THOSE are 'good xtian warriors' ? ? ?
      i don't get it...

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:27PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:27PM (#410116) Journal

        Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's.

        Your constitution (if you're American) states that you owe years of service to your government. By law, you are a member of the Militia from age 18 until about age 40, whether you ever sign into a formal military organization. The government lays claim to your life, and the Bible says to give the government what it claims. You didn't, I presume?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:35PM (#410006)

    > You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of how bad Christianity is

    Why not? Self-styled christians like runaway and Billy Graham's son do it all the time.
    Except they use it as "proof" of how bad Islam is. Goose and gander, amirite?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:30PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:30PM (#410121) Journal

      I heard that. You've taken my name in vain. May you awaken tomorrow with the fleas of 1000 Muslim camels infesting your armpits.

      Now the problem with your claim about me is, I don't think I've EVER used the Bible to condemn Islam. The murderous pedophile who founded the religion at swordpoint said plenty enough to condemn his religion.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM (#410050)

    You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of...

    Funny, because thats exactly the thing "Christians" do to support their many anti-human positions, to support being pro-slavery and anti-freedom.