Keith Elder wrote: I think the left spews far more vile than the right (see this thread), and it turns the moderates away, costing elections that the Dems would normally win.

Seriously?  You can't, in all good conscious, believe that.  For every liberal spewing vile I can point you to three conservatives that spew the same sort of crap.  In the end, I don't think anyone can honestly say that one side is worse than the other.  My own personal opinion is that while liberals and Democrats may spew it openly, many a conservative and Republican couch their vitriol and bitterness in the Bible and religion somehow making it more OK to do so.

many a conservative and Republican couch their vitriol and bitterness in the Bible and religion somehow making it more OK to do so

I agree Matt, but with a distinction.  I think both sides spew it equally and both use "hidden" techniques to spew it.  For the right its through religiosity and "values" (whatever that means).  For the left sometimes it takes the form of pseudo-intellectualism or, at its worst, charges of biggotry.*

*Not to be confused with actual biggotry -- I mean fatuous accusations of racism, sexism, etc. without complete proof. 

I think the distinction is made between an innocent life (abortion), versus a guilty life, as judged by a jury of peers/citizens (death penalty).

I understand the distinction.  My comment is directed to the very religious whose belief is in sanctity of life.  If life is sacred, and a gift from our (alleged) creator, does it not follow that all life is, therefore sacred?  Punishment for guilt need not be capital.  If one believes that the end of life is the provence of God (or name your deity) then is that also not true of those who are guilty?  I don't get the disconnect is my point.  Classes of sanctity, such as it is. 

"But if life is sacred, is not all life sacred?  Should not one who is pro-life also support the abolition of the death penalty?  I've never gotten that disconnect."

There's only a disconnect if you're operating with a secular or "profane" interpretation of "sacred" as meaning only "protected from interference" or some variation thereof.

"Life is sacred", in most of its uses, properly means "Only God has the right to decide who lives or dies". 

Depending on how people choose to interpret that, it either means, as you suggest, that no-one has the right to take a life ever.

Or it can mean that lives should only be taken in circumstances where God allows or commands it, such as when one violates God's laws, or the killing is done by someone appointed by God to wield God's power over life and death through some form of Divine Right (i.e. when a government kills someone, either in a war or through a death penalty,  it does not violate the idea that "Life is Sacred.")

A bit simplified, but that's the general idea.

I disagree with the distinction - that was the point of my above post - I get that a jury of peers gets together and makes a legal decision, but in the end, it's still humans passing that ultimate judgement that is reserved for God.

Thus, back to Geoff's summation of my over-all question - how can those who claim to be Christian believe in the Death Penalty?

It's not the Death, it's the judgement. 

Thus, back to Geoff's summation of my over-all question - how can those who claim to be Christian believe in the Death Penalty?

Hi, Mike! How's tricks?

Let's add to your point with some specificity -- my recollection is that the Pope (I think John Paul II) issued an encyclical that Capital Punishment, except in the most limited cases, is anathema to Church teachings.  Where the are the condemenation of pro-life, pro-death penalty Catholic Politicians by the American Archbishops?  Why are they not denied communion?   

Sometimes it embarrases me to be part of a community who expects tolerance and acceptance but then turn around and be even less tolerant of others.

Try living in San Francisco.

But there is a logic to it - not everyone is MLK.  Some people are Malcolm X.

It's not always a case of hypocracy; sometimes it's a matter of people refusing to tolerate their oppressors.

We bring our own baggage to each case - we make assumptions about people.  it's like how protestors are called hypocrites for protesting violently at anti-war rallies - that's making the inncorrect assumption that everyone at the rally is just against war on principle.  Some are against that specific war, for example, and will fight it by any means nessecary as it were.

Something to consider...

Touche, Geoff.  I agree - I'm opposed to the Death Penalty - I feel I can't make that sort of judgement, but... you know... some cases hit me just so... I'd pull the trigger myself on OBL, despite me saying that it's a bad idea for America to execute him.  I'd push for death for that kid that shot that gay kid in the head at school.  There's no doubt he did it, and his actions are beyond redemption.

But by and large, I'd feel better off as a human if there were no death penalty.  If the closest I ever got was waxing philosophic about it on a internet message board.

Either one could have their campaign scuttled with one unfortunate fifteen-year-old videotape.

Crap!  Keith discovered Obama's October Surprise!!