15 ms·

Since this concerns the U.S. government, I'll say that the vendetta against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide by the Christian right is puzzling. The Bible

Since this concerns the U.S. government, I'll say that the vendetta against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide by the Christian right is puzzling. The Bible has a very ambivalent view on suicide (as with any other topic), the tale of Samson being a prime example. The main argument against suicide comes from Corinthians, but it is starkly contradicted by other passages. A person who is slowly succumbing, immobile, on the brink of death and suffering has nothing to offer or worthwhile to live for. Their life is effectively over and they're simply waiting for the moment their biological functions will at last cease. Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum. The religion is notably fascinated with martyrdom, asceticism and persecution complexes. But that suffering has no purpose in overcoming tribulation when you're a near-lifeless bag of meat. Then, of course, very few Christians actually ascribe to the ascetic life as laid down in their scripture. Sorry for your loss.

JshWright 13y ago
I realize it's our own doing, but there is nothing 'right' (or 'left') about Christianity. That being said... your post is completely accurate (in my experience), and speaking as a Christian, that infuriates me (likely even more than it does you...)
- lostlogin 13y ago
  In a 2 party system it pretty much is right or left. As a foreigner I'd argue that its far right and right though.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    > I'd argue that its far right and right Amein, that is my view as well. I was born in the Netherlands but have lived in the US for 8 years and I still spend 3 months out of the year there. My opinion is that US voters don’t really have choices. It’s right or far right. There are some fringe parties (like various socialist and green parties) but there’s no chance they’ll gain any power. In both the democratic party and the GOP there are conservatives and progressives, but it seems to me that the conservatives always win out. As a member of Left Turn and the League of Young Voters, I volunteer to register people to vote. I know it’s not enough, but I don’t know what else to do.
    - waps 13y ago
      This is something that amazes me about the Dutch. I'm working not too far from the Netherlands, and nobody here seems to have mentioned that the Dutch state effectively gives elderly 2 choices : 1) they can choose pain meds overdose and/or euthanasia (active/passive) 2) they can choose to go without medical care (when above a certain age, the rule is that if, on average, a treatment does not result in at minimum a 5% increase in the length of useful life per EUR 20k spent per year, that treatment will not be given). An example I'm intimately familiar with. Someone who required dialysis since he was 38 due to late-onset diabetes which wasn't discovered for too long (ie. partially destroyed his kidneys at a -relatively- young age). The national health insurance would stop covering his treatments at the age of 62 (note that this age is going down due to medical expenses rising above inflation). So the choice was pain meds overdose, or self-poisoning. To say that this person voluntarily chose euthanasia is a flat-out lie. He would have chosen to prolong his life, if there were no consequences. The deciding factor for the timing of his death was the financial needs of the state. Note that the royal family was actually scared of the government they led when it came to a prince who has slipped into a coma. They openly chose to have him treated in the UK (he had an accident in Austria skiing), to prevent the euthanasia choice being made for them. ( http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-would-have-stopped-treating-prince-friso http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-would-have-stopped-t... ) I am scared to think how many, percentage-wise, elderly Dutchmen actually are forced to chose between euthanasia and the cessation of most medical aid. And, frankly, knowing that that person paid decades for health insurance that promised health care until end of life, only to have the government change the deal under him ... I find it reprehensible. But it never seems to gather much attention. It seems Holland just wants to get rid of it's elderly.
- pjscott 13y ago
  The phrase "Christian right" identifies a subset of Christians; it does not imply anything more.
GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. You can use it advocate any position you chose. > Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum. Christianity didn't always hold this view. I suppose some of the movement comes from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Of course that is a very poor translation. A better one would be "Thou shall not kill without justification".
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  "Thou shall not kill" Unless you're going off to war to kill bad people. Then it's justified. And the other side justifies it with their side's supernatural beliefs.
- jamie_ca 13y ago
  The one I've heard as being somewhat more accurate is "Thou shalt not murder." That is, pre-meditated and with intent. The current version could wind up damning you for self-defence.
  - GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
    I don't think murder is a better translation, but my thoughts on the bible are best expressed by Tim Minchin's "The Good Book". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
- gcr 13y ago
  I sort of don't understand the thought of turning "Thou shall not kill" into "Thou shall do everything in thine power to keep the person alive"
  - waps 13y ago
    These rules are not actually from the bible, but from the Greeks, who had much stricter rules. 1) no abortion never jamais, under no circumstances. Nor advising women on how to do it themselves. 2) no euthanasia never jamais, under no circumstances. No advising people on how to DIY it either. 3) no refusing medical aid to anyone for any reason 4) never go against patient wishes for not getting treated 5) never, ever, advise anyone on the use of poison Some highlights from the Hippocratic oath. The first source of which is, unsurprisingly, not the Bible.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
> the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum I'm not aware of anyone of any ideological stripe who insists disproportionate medical measures must be taken to keep somebody alive. On the other hand, the Hippocratic oath far predates Christ. By the way, I'm not sure you understand Christianity's relationship to the bible. It's a small minority of Christians who subscribe to anything like the scriptural literalism you evoke. A lot of them happen to be American Calvinists, but they're still a small minority.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 13y ago
  I take it you don't remember the Terry Schiavo thing?
  - tsotha 13y ago
    You're oversimplifying. There were a lot of people on both sides who had reasons other than religion.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      I'm folding "crass political appeal to the religious rubes" under religion for that particular case. EDIT: Her parents obviously had different motivations than religion. The 10,000,000 politicians and talking heads? Either religion or political exploitation related to religion.
      - tsotha 13y ago
        Her husband was already in a relationship with another woman, who he wished to marry. His memory was the only source for her supposed wishes, and he was the one pushing to end her life. You don't have to be a religious fanatic to see a problem here.
        13y ago
ygmelnikova 13y ago
Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours. Why question medicine and ethics when you can kick a Christian instead?
- smtddr 13y ago
  >>Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours And by "most" you mean people who would have a _quality_ 24 hours. Because the person of subject in this article certainly wouldn't have made that choice. He couldn't; his mind was gone.
  - ygmelnikova 13y ago
    And there's the rub.. you can't be certain.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      But why disallow physician assisted suicide in cases where one is certain (as in, the patient is of sound mind, but in constant pain, and makes that decision), because of cases where you can't be 100.0000000% certain? Have you ever seen someone suffer horribly for no reason and without hope? I swore myself that if I ever have a terminal illness with a bad prognosis, I would rather kill myself before it's too late, instead of risking ending up in a situation where I can't; where I beg medical staff to kill me and they have to say "sorry, but I'm just doing my job". Yes, dementia is tricky, and so is suicide in general. It's a deeper issue than just being for or against it. How would we weigh the risk of people dying needlessly ("easier access to suicide and getting rid of the uncared for elderly"), versus the risk of people existing (I wouldn't call it living) in extreme pain, without hope, needlessly? I don't know, but I do agree that something has to change. Medicine is supposed to make life better, usually it does; but sometimes it makes it hell, and the ones suffering in that hell should have a say in wether they want out or not.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Please feel free to demonstrate that the majority of opposition to voluntary euthanasia in the United States is driven by groups other than Christian ones.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
season234 13y ago
On really? Christians back change in assisted suicide law, poll finds: http://www.jacquelinejencquel.com/post/christians-back-change-in-assisted-suicide-law-poll-finds.htm http://www.jacquelinejencquel.com/post/christians-back-chang... By the way, it's great that you generalize an entire group because of your preconceived biases against them. Imagine if you changed the word "Christians" to "Muslims" or "blacks". Do you realize how bigoted you sound?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  I was specifically referring to the Christian right, which is a political movement in the United States. Obviously the views I described do not apply to all Christians. Oh, and don't conflate religion with race.
spindritf 13y ago
> The religion is notably fascinated with martyrdom Martyrdom and suicide are nothing alike. To a Christian at least. About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist. http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  I never said they are. It was to illustrate Christianity's generally positive outlook on suffering as a trial.
  - gordaco 13y ago
    One of the most prominent examples can be found in Mother Teresa of Calcuta, who had some disturbing ideas about suffering. To the point of denying painkillers to terminal patients.
    - gdwatson 13y ago
mortyseinfeld 13y ago
You talk a lot about the "christian right", and I would agree with you on this particular case, but the "socialist left" is far more intrusive in our lives than the "christian right" is. Get the government out our lives and stop pretending that we need the government to be our nanny.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Have you envisioned in detail what a government that "isn't our nanny" would look like? Have you visualized the consequences of a transition to such a government? Personally, while I agree governments screw a lot of things up, I have to recognize they have many advantages. Private property for instance often needs a strong government to be properly enforced.
  - lake99 13y ago
    While the idea of "strong government" has many vague interpretations, one doesn't need a nanny state to enforce property rights. This is a good starting point for looking at what Benelux countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      As a citizen of the Netherlands I can tell you that the country is as neo-liberal[1] as they come, and yet, we have universal healthcare, gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion. (Also, racism is rampant, culture and education spending continue to be cut, the housing market has been in a slump since 2009, and taxes are on the rise – but I digress.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > the "socialist left" is far more intrusive in our lives You’re giving the movement way too much credit if you believe the “socialist left” has any clout in the US. I also hope you don’t think the Obama administration is socialist or leftist, as in reality it doesn’t even pass for social-democrat. In the US, the most circulated newspaper by far is the Wall Street Journal and the most watched news channel is FOX News. Both are owned by News Corporation (the Murdoch family) and they are far from socialist.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "The Bible has a very ambivalent view on suicide" I thought the argument against it was simply the commandment 'thou shalt not murder'.
- mcv 13y ago
  That's what some people say, but the bible is rather clear about abortion not being the same as murder. The punishment for killing an unborn baby is a fine paid to the parents.
htns 13y ago
The alternative to euthanasia is not suffering, but better hospice care. The sad thing is that not every hospital provides that equally.
brownbat 13y ago
There's another wrinkle from history. Depressed medieval Christians would avoid suicide, with its attendant eternal hellfires, by murdering children. That's right, murdering children. The innocents, they believed, would ascend to heaven. The murderer would be able to apologize for the murder and receive last rites from the Church before the State put them to death for their crime. They would die, go to heaven, and take someone along with them. It was a win for everyone, aside from the delusional bit, where it was all actually a horrific tragedy. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/t...
- bane 13y ago
  The parallel today is "suicide by cop".
sp332 13y ago
Samson wasn't exactly a role model.

JshWright 13y ago

I realize it's our own doing, but there is nothing 'right' (or 'left') about Christianity. That being said... your post is completely accurate (in my experience), and speaking as a Christian, that infuriates me (likely even more than it does you...)

lostlogin 13y ago
In a 2 party system it pretty much is right or left. As a foreigner I'd argue that its far right and right though.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > I'd argue that its far right and right Amein, that is my view as well. I was born in the Netherlands but have lived in the US for 8 years and I still spend 3 months out of the year there. My opinion is that US voters don’t really have choices. It’s right or far right. There are some fringe parties (like various socialist and green parties) but there’s no chance they’ll gain any power. In both the democratic party and the GOP there are conservatives and progressives, but it seems to me that the conservatives always win out. As a member of Left Turn and the League of Young Voters, I volunteer to register people to vote. I know it’s not enough, but I don’t know what else to do.
  - waps 13y ago
    This is something that amazes me about the Dutch. I'm working not too far from the Netherlands, and nobody here seems to have mentioned that the Dutch state effectively gives elderly 2 choices : 1) they can choose pain meds overdose and/or euthanasia (active/passive) 2) they can choose to go without medical care (when above a certain age, the rule is that if, on average, a treatment does not result in at minimum a 5% increase in the length of useful life per EUR 20k spent per year, that treatment will not be given). An example I'm intimately familiar with. Someone who required dialysis since he was 38 due to late-onset diabetes which wasn't discovered for too long (ie. partially destroyed his kidneys at a -relatively- young age). The national health insurance would stop covering his treatments at the age of 62 (note that this age is going down due to medical expenses rising above inflation). So the choice was pain meds overdose, or self-poisoning. To say that this person voluntarily chose euthanasia is a flat-out lie. He would have chosen to prolong his life, if there were no consequences. The deciding factor for the timing of his death was the financial needs of the state. Note that the royal family was actually scared of the government they led when it came to a prince who has slipped into a coma. They openly chose to have him treated in the UK (he had an accident in Austria skiing), to prevent the euthanasia choice being made for them. ( http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-would-have-stopped-treating-prince-friso http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-would-have-stopped-t... ) I am scared to think how many, percentage-wise, elderly Dutchmen actually are forced to chose between euthanasia and the cessation of most medical aid. And, frankly, knowing that that person paid decades for health insurance that promised health care until end of life, only to have the government change the deal under him ... I find it reprehensible. But it never seems to gather much attention. It seems Holland just wants to get rid of it's elderly.
pjscott 13y ago
The phrase "Christian right" identifies a subset of Christians; it does not imply anything more.

GalacticDomin8r 13y ago

The bible doesn't condemn suicide(or abortion) anywhere in it directly. However, as with any good moral book, it is ambiguous. You can use it advocate any position you chose. > Yet the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum. Christianity didn't always hold this view. I suppose some of the movement comes from the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Of course that is a very poor translation. A better one would be "Thou shall not kill without justification".

mgkimsal 13y ago
"Thou shall not kill" Unless you're going off to war to kill bad people. Then it's justified. And the other side justifies it with their side's supernatural beliefs.
jamie_ca 13y ago
The one I've heard as being somewhat more accurate is "Thou shalt not murder." That is, pre-meditated and with intent. The current version could wind up damning you for self-defence.
- GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
  I don't think murder is a better translation, but my thoughts on the bible are best expressed by Tim Minchin's "The Good Book". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
gcr 13y ago
I sort of don't understand the thought of turning "Thou shall not kill" into "Thou shall do everything in thine power to keep the person alive"
- waps 13y ago
  These rules are not actually from the bible, but from the Greeks, who had much stricter rules. 1) no abortion never jamais, under no circumstances. Nor advising women on how to do it themselves. 2) no euthanasia never jamais, under no circumstances. No advising people on how to DIY it either. 3) no refusing medical aid to anyone for any reason 4) never go against patient wishes for not getting treated 5) never, ever, advise anyone on the use of poison Some highlights from the Hippocratic oath. The first source of which is, unsurprisingly, not the Bible.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

> the Christian right insists that the agony be prolonged to a maximum I'm not aware of anyone of any ideological stripe who insists disproportionate medical measures must be taken to keep somebody alive. On the other hand, the Hippocratic oath far predates Christ. By the way, I'm not sure you understand Christianity's relationship to the bible. It's a small minority of Christians who subscribe to anything like the scriptural literalism you evoke. A lot of them happen to be American Calvinists, but they're still a small minority.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 13y ago
I take it you don't remember the Terry Schiavo thing?
- tsotha 13y ago
  You're oversimplifying. There were a lot of people on both sides who had reasons other than religion.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    I'm folding "crass political appeal to the religious rubes" under religion for that particular case. EDIT: Her parents obviously had different motivations than religion. The 10,000,000 politicians and talking heads? Either religion or political exploitation related to religion.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Her husband was already in a relationship with another woman, who he wished to marry. His memory was the only source for her supposed wishes, and he was the one pushing to end her life. You don't have to be a religious fanatic to see a problem here.
      - 13y ago

ygmelnikova 13y ago

Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours. Why question medicine and ethics when you can kick a Christian instead?

smtddr 13y ago
>>Most folk would choose everything medically possible to be performed to keep them going for another 24 hours And by "most" you mean people who would have a _quality_ 24 hours. Because the person of subject in this article certainly wouldn't have made that choice. He couldn't; his mind was gone.
- ygmelnikova 13y ago
  And there's the rub.. you can't be certain.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    But why disallow physician assisted suicide in cases where one is certain (as in, the patient is of sound mind, but in constant pain, and makes that decision), because of cases where you can't be 100.0000000% certain? Have you ever seen someone suffer horribly for no reason and without hope? I swore myself that if I ever have a terminal illness with a bad prognosis, I would rather kill myself before it's too late, instead of risking ending up in a situation where I can't; where I beg medical staff to kill me and they have to say "sorry, but I'm just doing my job". Yes, dementia is tricky, and so is suicide in general. It's a deeper issue than just being for or against it. How would we weigh the risk of people dying needlessly ("easier access to suicide and getting rid of the uncared for elderly"), versus the risk of people existing (I wouldn't call it living) in extreme pain, without hope, needlessly? I don't know, but I do agree that something has to change. Medicine is supposed to make life better, usually it does; but sometimes it makes it hell, and the ones suffering in that hell should have a say in wether they want out or not.
rodgerd 13y ago
Please feel free to demonstrate that the majority of opposition to voluntary euthanasia in the United States is driven by groups other than Christian ones.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

season234 13y ago

On really? Christians back change in assisted suicide law, poll finds: http://www.jacquelinejencquel.com/post/christians-back-change-in-assisted-suicide-law-poll-finds.htm http://www.jacquelinejencquel.com/post/christians-back-chang... By the way, it's great that you generalize an entire group because of your preconceived biases against them. Imagine if you changed the word "Christians" to "Muslims" or "blacks". Do you realize how bigoted you sound?

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
I was specifically referring to the Christian right, which is a political movement in the United States. Obviously the views I described do not apply to all Christians. Oh, and don't conflate religion with race.

spindritf 13y ago

> The religion is notably fascinated with martyrdom Martyrdom and suicide are nothing alike. To a Christian at least. About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist. http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
I never said they are. It was to illustrate Christianity's generally positive outlook on suffering as a trial.
- gordaco 13y ago
  One of the most prominent examples can be found in Mother Teresa of Calcuta, who had some disturbing ideas about suffering. To the point of denying painkillers to terminal patients.
  - gdwatson 13y ago

mortyseinfeld 13y ago

You talk a lot about the "christian right", and I would agree with you on this particular case, but the "socialist left" is far more intrusive in our lives than the "christian right" is. Get the government out our lives and stop pretending that we need the government to be our nanny.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Have you envisioned in detail what a government that "isn't our nanny" would look like? Have you visualized the consequences of a transition to such a government? Personally, while I agree governments screw a lot of things up, I have to recognize they have many advantages. Private property for instance often needs a strong government to be properly enforced.
- lake99 13y ago
  While the idea of "strong government" has many vague interpretations, one doesn't need a nanny state to enforce property rights. This is a good starting point for looking at what Benelux countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    As a citizen of the Netherlands I can tell you that the country is as neo-liberal[1] as they come, and yet, we have universal healthcare, gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion. (Also, racism is rampant, culture and education spending continue to be cut, the housing market has been in a slump since 2009, and taxes are on the rise – but I digress.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> the "socialist left" is far more intrusive in our lives You’re giving the movement way too much credit if you believe the “socialist left” has any clout in the US. I also hope you don’t think the Obama administration is socialist or leftist, as in reality it doesn’t even pass for social-democrat. In the US, the most circulated newspaper by far is the Wall Street Journal and the most watched news channel is FOX News. Both are owned by News Corporation (the Murdoch family) and they are far from socialist.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "The Bible has a very ambivalent view on suicide" I thought the argument against it was simply the commandment 'thou shalt not murder'.

mcv 13y ago
That's what some people say, but the bible is rather clear about abortion not being the same as murder. The punishment for killing an unborn baby is a fine paid to the parents.

htns 13y ago

The alternative to euthanasia is not suffering, but better hospice care. The sad thing is that not every hospital provides that equally.

brownbat 13y ago

There's another wrinkle from history. Depressed medieval Christians would avoid suicide, with its attendant eternal hellfires, by murdering children. That's right, murdering children. The innocents, they believed, would ascend to heaven. The murderer would be able to apologize for the murder and receive last rites from the Church before the State put them to death for their crime. They would die, go to heaven, and take someone along with them. It was a win for everyone, aside from the delusional bit, where it was all actually a horrific tragedy. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/t...

bane 13y ago
The parallel today is "suicide by cop".

sp332 13y ago

Samson wasn't exactly a role model.