Firstly the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. Really it doesn't. I can prove this if you really want to argue.

We have a lower murder rate than most countries. This is actually a reflection of the lack of guns rather than any inherent restraint on our part. If we had access to weapons with greater lethality we would kill more people. It's quite simple more guns = more dead people and the consequences are irrelevent at the time of the deed.

Also the British public is pretty much 50-50 on the death penalty according to recent polls.

I am also happy to accept that many yank churches have social welfare programmes. That's because there's sod-all else out there.

Handing out a few sarnies and cup-a-soups is all well and good. However if the interpretation of the bible that drives your life is what causes this poverty and squalor in the first place i would say you have your priorities arse-about-face.

WWJD? I would have thought that having experienced the death penalty he'd certainly have views on the subject.

"However if the interpretation of the bible that drives your life is what causes this poverty and squalor in the first place i would say you have your priorities arse-about-face."

What in the world did you mean by this statement?

What I meant was that things like poverty, homelessness and other social problems don't "just happen" there are underlying causes of all these things.

If the way that your society is set up is based on a set of values derived from a religious viewpoint that is mean-minded and cruel, then it is more likely that these failures will happen.

Once that has happened no amount of goodwill gestures are going to make any real difference.

So if you are a Christian person I think you should be more interested in looking after the poor, ill and helpless with things like free health care, reasonable public housing, and a welfare safety net than in waiting for people to reach rock bottom and then giving them a mug of soup and feeling pleased with yourself about it.

Do these things have to be provided by the sate? No. For example London's biggest landlord for the poor - the Peabody Trust was formed by an American and has aroound 20,000 homes for the less well off. However when push comes to shove the only body with enough clout to provide all of these things is the state, and the state is made up of the people who live in it and reflects their value judgements.

Is that better?

"If the way that your society is set up is based on a set of values derived from a religious viewpoint that is mean-minded and cruel, then it is more likely that these failures will happen."

Please provide examples of religious viewpoints that you think are cruel and mean-spirited.

I think you are trying to say that religion causes poverty, hunger, homelessness.... . I fail to see the connection.

hmmm I clicked on this thread supposedly about "eating" and started at the bottom to work up. Can we say "off the subject?"

Hi ek,

> Ira;

And here all along I thought you were from Brooklyn.<

I was, but that was a loooong time ago.

I am now "based" in Madison, GA.
See www.madisonga.org

NeoPatrick... no kidding!!!

Audere, you're painting with too broad a brush. There are many ways of practicing religion in the US, and the one you are criticizing is one that I have seldom if ever encountered in real life.