To the editor:

I am replying to Andy Gonzales’ article in the March 1 issue of the Daily.

In the article, Gonzales makes several mistakes, the greatest of which is blurring the line between church and state. Really, where in our government does it allow biblical reasons to shore up ill-conceived public policy?

In reply to the assertion that our country was founded on Christian principles, I say that there is quite a bit of evidence that says it was not.

After all, why else is there a separation built into our most important documents?

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” —Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

Gonzales begins the article by begging the question “What crimes are worthy of death?”

By telling us that only crimes worthy of death are given the death penalty, Gonzales has told us nothing new.

Where pro- and anti- death penalty advocates differ, contrary to what Gonzales says, is in which crimes deserve the death penalty. Opponents say that there is no crime worthy of death.

Secondly, Gonzales tells us “the Christian community is called upon to articulate the standards of justice.” Called upon by whom? Not by me.

Nor by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Daoists, or Atheists. I call on the law as laid down by our courts to decide what is moral.

After all, your God thinks it’s pretty moral to curse children for their parents crimes. (Original sin, anyone?) Gonzales compares Christ to the criminals we have on death row.

First, if you believe the execution story as told in the Bible, then you believe that Christ wasn’t a murderer.

Christ didn’t do anything wrong to be executed, at least nothing we would consider wrong today.

So there you have it: The first innocent man in history to be wrongly executed.

At this point I’d like to examine the Sixth Commandment to see where it allows Christ to die for us.

Thou shalt not kill.

Now, comparing murder to rape is as good an analogy as comparing apples to goats.

In both murders and executions, one person dies. In rape, one person has “enjoyment,” and the other suffers very much.

I could agree with you on this one, Andy, if consensual sex left the woman an emotional mess, suicidal, and severely doubting her own self-worth and self-ownership.

Frankly, relating the two scenarios is absurd.

Do you advocate that not bringing up crucial evidence still allows for a fair trial? That’s pretty ludicrous to me.

Why have public defenders at all if the court system always makes the right decision? I say this: It is possible for a court to decide wrongly that a person is guilty.

Illinois agrees with me on that one.

Our alternative to executing these people is locking them up. I need not remind you that no matter how long a person is locked up, that person can still be released if found innocent.

How does your brand of justice deal with that? As for “defending society,” what harm do criminals in life terms pose to us? The next thing Gonzales tries to tell us is that not executing criminals amounts to giving them guns and letting them go.

Puh-lease. Do you expect us to believe that garbage? Nowhere do opponents of the death penalty even suggest we let these criminals go.

Next, Gonzales tells us that there are about 365,000 crimes that warrant capital punishment, and that 1 percent are punished. What should we do, Andy Gonzales? Build incinerators? Gas chambers the size and shape of public showers?

I have the perfect solution: Let’s give all the Christians guns and let them judge the rest of us.

I’m sure they’d be fair about it, just like they were towards Galileo. Like they were towards Darwin. And towards the Salem witches. And the Crusades.

Oh, and yes: We all think the dragging death should be considered “carjacking”. What kind of morons does Gonzales think we are? Life in prison is an option: You needn’t be so bloodthirsty.

In conclusion, we both agree that criminals need to be punished, but we disagree on exactly how to do it. I see no reason to kill people in order to punish them for killing people because that amounts to revenge, not justice. I do not pretend to have the ability to determine whether someone deserves to die or not. Andy Gonzales, if you have no sin, then by all means, cast the first stone.

Keith Twombley

Sophomore

Computer science