"If the Old Testament were a reliable guide in the matter of capital punishment, half the people in the United States would have to be killed tomorrow"
About this Quote
Steve Allen uses shock to expose the gulf between ancient theocratic law and modern democratic ethics. The Hebrew Bible prescribes death not only for murder but for a wide array of offenses: adultery, blasphemy, sorcery, idolatry, cursing parents, and even working on the Sabbath. Taken literally and applied universally, such statutes would criminalize behavior that is common, nonviolent, or understood today as private moral choice, and would authorize punishments that defy contemporary standards of proportionality. By exaggerating to the point of absurdity that half the nation would be executed tomorrow, Allen highlights how untenable it is to treat those ancient codes as a direct policy manual for a pluralistic society.
The line fits Allen’s public persona as a comedian, social critic, and outspoken humanist. He often targeted inconsistencies in public reasoning, especially the temptation to cherry-pick scripture in political debates. In the American argument over capital punishment, appeals to “an eye for an eye” recur, yet few advocates would endorse stoning for Sabbath-breaking or executing rebellious children. That selective rigor reveals that modern judgments already rely on extra-biblical principles: constitutional protections, evolving human rights norms, empirical evidence about deterrence, and a moral intuition about dignity and cruelty. Allen’s jab is less about scorning faith than about demanding intellectual honesty in how tradition is used to justify state power over life and death.
His deeper point concerns moral development and interpretation. The Bible emerged from specific historical conditions, within a covenant community where divine law, civil law, and identity were fused. A secular republic cannot simply import that framework without betraying its own commitments to liberty of conscience and equal citizenship. If we reject many biblical penalties as barbaric or context-bound, then the remaining question is what justifies the ones we keep. Allen nudges us toward reasoned, transparent standards rather than sacred citations, and toward a justice system that measures punishment by humane principles, not the letter of an ancient code.
The line fits Allen’s public persona as a comedian, social critic, and outspoken humanist. He often targeted inconsistencies in public reasoning, especially the temptation to cherry-pick scripture in political debates. In the American argument over capital punishment, appeals to “an eye for an eye” recur, yet few advocates would endorse stoning for Sabbath-breaking or executing rebellious children. That selective rigor reveals that modern judgments already rely on extra-biblical principles: constitutional protections, evolving human rights norms, empirical evidence about deterrence, and a moral intuition about dignity and cruelty. Allen’s jab is less about scorning faith than about demanding intellectual honesty in how tradition is used to justify state power over life and death.
His deeper point concerns moral development and interpretation. The Bible emerged from specific historical conditions, within a covenant community where divine law, civil law, and identity were fused. A secular republic cannot simply import that framework without betraying its own commitments to liberty of conscience and equal citizenship. If we reject many biblical penalties as barbaric or context-bound, then the remaining question is what justifies the ones we keep. Allen nudges us toward reasoned, transparent standards rather than sacred citations, and toward a justice system that measures punishment by humane principles, not the letter of an ancient code.
Quote Details
| Topic | Dark Humor |
|---|
More Quotes by Steve
Add to List
