Questions legality of moral decisions


I am an unborn-life supporting, anti-legalization of any drug-supporting, voter who believes governments should be fiscally responsible. I am also a believer in result-based social welfare programs.

I also staunchly support the Second Amendment (along with the entire Constitution) and am one who has a concealed carry permit, and I am vehemently against state-prosecuted executions.

Does that sound like a contradiction?

My beliefs are based on the bitter experience that there is an abiding corruption within governmental agencies. Over the years, dozens, if not hundreds of people have been sent to their deaths simply, I believe, to satisfy panicked public outcry, political pressure and unbridled ambition.

Secondly, one could hardly say state execution is an act of "self-defense."

These are the moral rational I have when thinking about the death sentence.

I only wish our Gov. Inslee would be more clear about his own "moral" rational for choosing to ignore Washington State law. I find it interesting he was willing enough to ignore federal law when he signed pot into legalization. I am guessing that was a "moral" decision of some sort too. What rational exactly are his "moral" decisions based upon?

Just saying one's decisions are morally based without clear foundational underpinnings is just vapid rhetoric.

Remember my comments about unbridled ambition?

Konrad Lau


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service