I’ve looked at all the issues and weighed the pros and cons. I’ve waded through the Presidential debate and conflicting views of candidates running for other offices. I’ve used my brain, my heart, my gut, and my common sense. Now I know how I’ll vote.
I’m going to vote to preserve America’s soul, conscience, and well-being.
If you have a righteous cause, why jeopardize it by (let’s be kind) “stretching the truth”? Publicity that isn’t based on actual fact can fire up current followers and garner a few more–until the truth comes out. At that point, the black cloud of suspicion gathers over your cause and you. Take two recent cases in point.
First, Kim Davis and her encounter with the Pope. Yes, her position would be strengthened if the Pope granted her an audience and offered her support for her stance against issuing marriage licences to gay couples. IF that had actually happened. Instead, she was among dozens of people who had a brief casual conversation with Pope Francis, not an audience or deep discussion, let alone encouragement and support.
Next, the Planned Parenthood video with the horrendous talk about an aborted fetus. This is powerful ammunition against Planned Parenthood–if the video is true. Many people still choose to believe the validity of that video, although reputable sources question it because the jumpy motions indicate that the camera was stopped and started again and again (lots of editing), because there is no sound (e.g., discussion about harvesting the brain), and because the maker of the video admits he made it elsewhere to depict a story he had heard. It doesn’t create an air of truthfulness, either, when the mother of the fetus says publicly that her child was a miscarriage, not an abortion.
I believe that we need to act on our consciences. To do so effectively, though, we need to use the truth as our weapon of strength, not emotion-grabbing falsehoods.
One woman is receiving threats and has to have security because she refused to cave in. She was the only one who stuck to her “no” vote on whether to execute Jodi Arias. It wasn’t a religious decision or that she was opposed to the death penalty. We have to believe her on that; lawyers put prospective jurors through rigorous questioning to disqualify such people. Rather, there was something nagging at her conscience, making her unsure that death was appropriate in this case.
And she wasn’t the only one. Four members of the original jury also refused to vote for death for Arias. And those jurors heard the entire case, not an abridged version of it, as this last jury did.
Putting a human being to death is a very serious decision to make. That’s why it must be unanimous. And why we must respect the people who have enough doubt to vote against it.
What would have happened if the original four and this one woman had been replaced with others? Would they have interpreted facts differently? Would they have felt that doubt but, nonetheless, been influenced to vote with the majority? Would that have been any more just than the real outcome?
There are too many uncontrollable factors going into jury selection, and a judge alone should not make the determination. This, in itself, should be reason enough to eliminate the death penalty in America.
Today’s short Thursday Thought quote comes from Washington the man, not the place, although people working for us in the place should take heed:
