• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defending religious liberty with violence

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
If some regime tried to seriously limit your religious liberty would you use violence against them? And by violence, I mean targeted lethal violence.

I would, as a matter of principle, even if it probably wouldn’t achieve much.

I think it’s a God-given right to defend with violence the freedom you have to practice your faith.

And by seriously limiting religious liberty I don’t mean (for example) not allowing Niqab to be worn in public or not allowing crucifixes to be displayed in the workplace, I mean more fundamental things, such as being forbidden to assemble, associate, worship and believe.

I’m talking about practicing resistance against genuine oppression, not secularism.

What do people think?

I say yes, I would.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If some regime tried to seriously limit your religious liberty would you use violence against them? And by violence, I mean targeted lethal violence.

I would, as a matter of principle, even if it probably wouldn’t achieve much.

I think it’s a God-given right to defend with violence the freedom you have to practice your faith.

And by seriously limiting religious liberty I don’t mean (for example) not allowing Niqab to be worn in public or not allowing crucifixes to be displayed in the workplace, I mean more fundamental things, such as being forbidden to assemble, associate, worship and believe.

I’m talking about practicing resistance against genuine oppression, not secularism.

What do people think?

I say yes, I would.

The right to not practice it, sure.
I will die before I will submit to islam.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
If some regime tried to seriously limit your religious liberty would you use violence against them? And by violence, I mean targeted lethal violence.

I would, as a matter of principle, even if it probably wouldn’t achieve much.

I think it’s a God-given right to defend with violence the freedom you have to practice your faith.

And by seriously limiting religious liberty I don’t mean (for example) not allowing Niqab to be worn in public or not allowing crucifixes to be displayed in the workplace, I mean more fundamental things, such as being forbidden to assemble, associate, worship and believe.

I’m talking about practicing resistance against genuine oppression, not secularism.

What do people think?

I say yes, I would.
It depends what you mean by religious liberty. As an atheist I'm all for defending religious liberty, you can worship who you want, as often as you want in your own time.
You can meet with friends and say prayers deliver sermons, etc.

What I am against is religious privilege, when (and it is usually Christian) think they can say prayers before a meeting, have the school team bow to that their god, get tax breaks, have their commandments on public property.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't think religion, per se, has anything to do with this.

You have the right to peacefully assemble. You have the right to come to your own opinions/beliefs and to discuss them with others.

I don't see these as 'God-given' rights, but simply as basic *human* rights.

And yes, if the government tries to take these away, there are times when violent revolution is the correct thing to do.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If some regime tried to seriously limit your religious liberty would you use violence against them? And by violence, I mean targeted lethal violence.

I would, as a matter of principle, even if it probably wouldn’t achieve much.

I think it’s a God-given right to defend with violence the freedom you have to practice your faith.

And by seriously limiting religious liberty I don’t mean (for example) not allowing Niqab to be worn in public or not allowing crucifixes to be displayed in the workplace, I mean more fundamental things, such as being forbidden to assemble, associate, worship and believe.

I’m talking about practicing resistance against genuine oppression, not secularism.

What do people think?

I say yes, I would.

In the past, I’ve debated whether I would be on the other-side of the coin as a communist doing the persecuting. The issue is whether a false belief is necessarily a dangerous one and is in fact so dangerous, the violence persecution is the lesser evil or a humane and justified response against barbarism.

In some instances where religion justifies very extreme practices such slavery and human sacrifice, it is justified to deprive people of their religious liberty by the use of force. (i.e. waging war against ISIS for genocide and sex slavery would be readily justifiable). Such beliefs are so extreme that book burning and censorship may well be a necessary part of protecting “civilisation” similar to denazification after the second world war. Beyond that, it gets harder to determine the degree where religious freedom ends and the rights of others begin.

It would be justified to use violence against say christian or islamic zealots trying to establish a theocratic state and to “eliminate” or neutralise the section of the clergy in countries where they would try to install such regimes. Ending theocracies is not a peaceful process because the clergy has so much power they must be opposed. Saudi Arabia and Iran will never accept secular rule without violence. They will require very strong secular states to compel people to accept tolerance.

However, most believers are reasonable people who want to be left alone and I can live with that. “Live and let live” is a healthy relationship most of the time. The persecution of believers in the USSR, China and other communist countries leaves me uneasy- particularly as the persecution of the jews by communists does readily draw comparisons with the holocaust.
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
In some instances where religion justifies very extreme practices such slavery and human sacrifice, it is justified to deprive people of their religious liberty by the use of force
I agree with this, that harmful practices should be oppressed...

But I was talking about religious freedom as an institution, which I don't think covers such things as slavery, or human sacrifice as these things limit the freedom and dignity of others (and should therefore be oppressed)
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
If some regime tried to seriously limit your religious liberty would you use violence against them? And by violence, I mean targeted lethal violence.

I would, as a matter of principle, even if it probably wouldn’t achieve much.

I think it’s a God-given right to defend with violence the freedom you have to practice your faith.

And by seriously limiting religious liberty I don’t mean (for example) not allowing Niqab to be worn in public or not allowing crucifixes to be displayed in the workplace, I mean more fundamental things, such as being forbidden to assemble, associate, worship and believe.

I’m talking about practicing resistance against genuine oppression, not secularism.

What do people think?

I say yes, I would.
The Knights Templar, at their beginning, before they became corrupted, had the goal of defending the Faith from physical attack. There are modern Templar orders.

I would defy serious restriction on others or my religious rights, peacefully.

Physical attacks, would be defended against with all force necessary.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I agree with this, that harmful practices should be oppressed...

But I was talking about religious freedom as an institution, which I don't think covers such things as slavery, or human sacrifice as these things limit the freedom and dignity of others (and should therefore be oppressed)

Slavery and human sacrifice are obvious ones that would have nearly universal opposition nowadays. It's not representative of religious believers.

Historically, it would be a different matter. It gets hard whenever someone says "we are doing this because God says so" and individual rights come second to the creator. As far as I can tell you have to be prepared to wage war against the religion, if not the deity, to ensure that people are free and not controlled or owned by God or someone claiming to act on gods behalf. It's simpler than Christians fighting Christians or Muslims fighting Muslims over interpretations of gods will.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It's been proven through out history that violence is never the fix.


I think the lessons of history are much more subtle than that. Violence *has* been the fix any number of times: the American revolution is a good example.

The problem with violence is that it tends to get out of control: witness the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Revolutions tend to eat their fathers.

WWII is another example where violence was a fix against Nazi Germany.

Violence has its place, even if it has been too often used and often used for bad ends.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Considering serious limits of my religious practice would require targeted violence against myself, well... assuming I still want to live there's no animal that's just going to roll over and die faced with something like that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The right to not practice it, sure.
I will die before I will submit to islam.
Better yet...
Let the oppressors die before submitting to the religion of peace.

Gen Geo Patton said it best....
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other ba$tard die for his.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The right to not practice it, sure.
I will die before I will submit to islam.
I'd add all isms including Chinese dictatorship.

But die? People all over the world struggle against dictatorships of all kind, whether religious or secular. And with dedication, they eventually win.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'd add all isms including Chinese dictatorship.

But die? People all over the world struggle against dictatorships of all kind, whether religious or secular. And with dedication, they eventually win.

I did not mean I would kill myself.
 
Top