Supporting a sacrilegious sanctuary, scientific society, and solace for Southern secularists.

I had some debate with my brother last night.  It began by discussing the death penalty.  I explained that I have no absolute moral objections to capital punishment, provided that evidence of its benefit outweighed its negative consequences.  To get to the heart of the matter, I asked about the purpose of execution.  It is ostensibly to serve as a deterrent.  What are the negative consequences?  Well, there are diplomatic concerns.  Many countries have laws forbidding extradition to the U.S. if the prisoner could potentially face execution.  That includes terrorists.  It also harms the nation's image to the rest of the world.  Furthermore, because absolute certainty of guilt is rare, and because there are acknowledged cases of false conviction with a death sentence, sometimes realized before execution-sometimes not, there is always the risk of state execution of an innocent civilian.  Before I could justify such an act, I would need good evidence of its efficacy.  However, the crime statistics just do not support the concept of execution as a deterrent.  Texas has the highest rate of execution.  It also has 3 of the top 5 cities in terms of rate of violent crime.  Across the board, states with capital punishment tend to have higher crime rates.  Now, I understand that higher crime might be what encouraged citizens to support the death penalty.  But if a high crime rate exists, the death penalty is enacted, and the crime rate shows no significant statistical decrease, then its effectiveness as a deterrent must be called into question.  If it doesn't serve as a deterrent, is it worth the cost in terms of diplomacy and potential risk? 

It's not a question of "bleeding heart" liberalism.  It's a question of cost-benefit analysis.  It's too bad that things get painted with rhetoric so people are afraid to reasonably consider something due to a fear of being labeled or cast in a certain light.

We also discussed evolution.  I was complaining about the amount of ignorance concerning evolution in this country.  He argued that everyone is entitled to their belief.  I believe I made a comment about our country being perceived in large part as "backwoods country bumpkins".  He argued that lots of people have religious beliefs which conflict with evolution.  I stated that in the middle ages lots of people had beliefs that conflicted with heliocentrism.  It didn't make them correct.  Unbelievably he tried to use the evolution is a "theory" argument. My own brother!  I had to set the record straight that "evoltionary theory" is a theory in the same vein as "atomic theory", "gravitational theory", etc...  I acknowledged that everyone is entitled to their belief, just like if someone wants to believe the sun goes around the Earth they are entitled to.  But it doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.  He asked if I think everyone who rejects evolution is an idiot.  I stated that I didn't call anyone names, I just stated that I view their rejection of evolution as equivalent to someone who rejects a heliocentric solar system.  He then said, "so you do think they're idiots".  I asked if that was his opinion of people who reject heliocentrism.  He stammered for a moment.  I said, regardless of my opinion of people who reject evolution or heliocentrism or atomic theory, the fact is they are all regarded as fact by a scientific consensus and supported by comparable evidence.  He interrupted toward the end and said he considers those things different.  As I asked why, he interrupted and said, "let's just drop it...I don't feel like talking about it any more." 

How many of my conversations have ended this way......