• 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

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
So because one might die fighting for what you believe,
you must do nothing?

In the event, the context of the supposed jesus-saying is
that if you take up arms against the Roman Empire, you
will be killed.

Last time I checked, we will all be "killed" either way .
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Last time I checked, we will all be "killed" either way .

Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavoury guide!

Thou desperate pilot, now at once run on

The dashing rocks thy sea-sick weary bark!

Here's to my love!

O true apothecary!

images.jpeg.jpg
 

Windwalker

Veteran 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.
I prefer to follow the way Jesus taught when it comes to this. Nonviolent resistance was what he did, just like Gandhi and MLK. So resist, yes. Violence, no.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
In my opinion, violence should never be one's baseline method for effecting constitutional change - not even in situations where fundamental rights have been threatened or suppressed by a government (such as 'religious liberty' or 'freedom of conscience'). If a given ideology adheres to such a framework or dialectic - as with Marxist-Leninism - however sympathetic I may be to its broad goals in theory, I would find myself unable to countenance it in practice and therefore feel obligated in conscience to withhold my support from any insurrectionist endeavours.

You can never keep ahead of, nor rein in, all of the unintended consequences that might ensue from such a rash and brutal course of action. Revolutions have a habit of devouring their own children, as the old saying goes. Things can very quickly spiral out of control and descend into internecine civil war - as very sadly occurred in Syria a decade ago - from which no side really benefits, apart from pyrrhic victories coming at great cost to human lives and livelihoods, as well as infrastructure.

I am especially opposed to armed struggle if the violent strategies or tactics in question, involve any acts of indiscriminate terror with civilians as casualties, as is liable to occur in low-level, guerrilla conflicts reliant upon paramilitary forces. This is not ethical or justified under any circumstances, however bad the situation may be.

With that being said, in very extreme circumstances (provided there is at least a reasonable prospect of the armed insurrection actually achieving its aim, for instance of repealing the laws censuring freedom of expression, rather than wasting precious lives on both sides 'Thermopylae-style' in a suicide mission), when all other options have been exhausted and the 'oppressor' proves impervious to dialogue and/or resists all efforts to ameliorate the situation through peaceful channels that could have led to a legal accommodation with the opposition or a negotiated settlement (i.e. protest movements, boycotts, strikes, legislative reform) - then yes, it can sometimes be justifiable to prevent greater harm from ensuing by taking up arms in a revolutionary struggle or waging a defensive war in response to overwhelming aggression.

But the many, many caveats are necessary qualifications, since I hope this would be the very last option.

In reference to 'war' more specifically (as opposed to armed violence in general), until the day comes when we have a true juridification of international law backed up by a global tribunal or government with the authority to actually arbitrate disputes effectively (with real sanctioning power), as occurs between states in a federation or indeed between nations within a supranational union like the EU, wars are always a possibility that will haunt us - and a limited number can be justifiable given the lack of any legal and efficacious alternatives under the present order, just like it would be legitimate and proportionate to use force to defend one's life if assaulted by an armed assassin intent on killing you in the street. The possibility of there being territoriality annexationist or genocidal regimes means that we must extend that same principle, which applies on the individual level, to entire groups of people as well.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I prefer to follow the way Jesus taught when it comes to this. Nonviolent resistance was what he did, just like Gandhi and MLK. So resist, yes. Violence, no.

Nonviolent resistance is certainly the superior way and must always be seriously attempted as the 'baseline' method.

That said, while it was efficacious for Ghandi against the British Empire - governed, I should note, by a largely aristocratic but still elected, parliamentarian British state (in spite of its colonial oppression of other peoples) - and in the case of Martin Luther King in the constitutional republic of the United States, with its racial discrimination in the South, nonviolence would not have been efficacious for Jews in the face of the Holocaust against the totalitarian German government.

Nazism, ideologically as we all know, regarded Jews - and other groups of people such as Gypsies, the disabled and homosexuals - to be untermensch or "life unworthy of life". They were not amenable to reason or appeals to conscience.

Passively 'resisting' them, using the same tactics as Ghandi and MLK employed against more rational regimes, would not have worked in that context with an explicitly genocidal state that lacked all humanitarian impulse and restraint.

That's a very 'extreme' and unlikely situation - most authoritarian regimes, such as juntas and military dictatorships, are not genocidal and so nonviolent resistance (as Early Christians also employed in the Roman Empire) could be a viable option in most cases.

But there are a rare, limited number of cases (and Nazi Germany in World War II is the most obvious one) where we do have to make exceptions to the general rule and so, while I am sympathetic to pacifism, I am not ideologically an "absolutist pacifist" for that reason - as absolutism in anything tends to overlook evidence and the need for discernment.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
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.
What you will not defend, somebody else will try to take.
 

1213

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 think people have right to defend themselves. But I think it would be best not to use violence. I think I would not use violence, but I hope I would not submit and do things that I don’t think are good and right, even if threatened with violence.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Nonviolent resistance is certainly the superior way and must always be seriously attempted as the 'baseline' method.

That said, while it was efficacious for Ghandi against the British Empire - governed, I should note, by a largely aristocratic but still elected, parliamentarian British state (in spite of its colonial oppression of other peoples) - and in the case of Martin Luther King in the constitutional republic of the United States, with its racial discrimination in the South, nonviolence would not have been efficacious for Jews in the face of the Holocaust against the totalitarian German government.

Nazism, ideologically as we all know, regarded Jews - and other groups of people such as Gypsies, the disabled and homosexuals - to be untermensch or "life unworthy of life". They were not amenable to reason or appeals to conscience.

Passively 'resisting' them, using the same tactics as Ghandi and MLK employed against more rational regimes, would not have worked in that context with an explicitly genocidal state that lacked all humanitarian impulse and restraint.

That's a very 'extreme' and unlikely situation - most authoritarian regimes, such as juntas and military dictatorships, are not genocidal and so nonviolent resistance (as Early Christians also employed in the Roman Empire) could be a viable option in most cases.

But there are a rare, limited number of cases (and Nazi Germany in World War II is the most obvious one) where we do have to make exceptions to the general rule and so, while I am sympathetic to pacifism, I am not ideologically an "absolutist pacifist" for that reason - as absolutism in anything tends to overlook evidence and the need for discernment.
I would not characterize nonviolent resistance, the same thing as pacifism, where violence even in the face of being wholesale attacked with the intent to kill you, in order to defend your life is forbidden. Gandhi never taught that, and I don't believe that Jesus necessarily did either. I wouldn't characterize either as pacifists, which generally suggests just laying down and not resisting aggression or violence towards you. Nonviolent resistance is much less pacifist in this regard.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I would not characterize nonviolent resistance, the same thing as pacifism, where violence even in the face of being wholesale attacked with the intent to kill you, in order to defend your life is forbidden. Gandhi never taught that, and I don't believe that Jesus necessarily did either. I wouldn't characterize either as pacifists, which generally suggests just laying down and not resisting aggression or violence towards you. Nonviolent resistance is much less pacifist in this regard.

I agree with you that Ghandi was not an 'absolutist' when it came to non-violence - i.e. a pacifist but rather a pragmatic believer in non-violent resistance, who regarded violence as "unlawful" but as an act of bravery, relative to cowardliness, for some people in certain defensive contexts.

He indeed stated:


Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution


I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor.

He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully [....]

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.


But I understood (my apologies if I misinterpreted) your earlier remark ("So resist, yes. Violence, no") to be more of an absolutist stance, given that the question asked in the OP effectively is whether violence can be legitimate in defence of one's freedom to practise a certain faith or belief system.

'Violence no' seemed to me to be an uncompromising stance (that resistance by force was absolutely excluded in all circumstances, even if non-violent resistance would be ineffective as in the face of Nazism)?

But I see now that this couldn't have been your meaning, so my apologies.

Naturally, I believe that violence should be avoided at all costs and passive resistance used in every possible situation involving oppression, unless it would prove absolutely ineffective in the face of a serious threat to life and limb whether of oneself or others.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But I understood (my apologies if I misinterpreted) your earlier remark ("So resist, yes. Violence, no") to be more of an absolutist stance, given that the question asked in the OP is if violence is legitimate in defence of one's freedom to practise a certain faith or belief system.

'Violence no' seemed to me to be an uncompromising stance (that resistance by force was absolutely excluded in all circumstances, even if non-violent resistance would be totally useless as in the face of Nazism)?
My response of "Violence, no" was in regard to what he raised, which was this.

"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."​

This is not the same thing as being rounded up and put into gas chambers, or into the newly constructed concentration camps for Muslims that India is building right now. Having to go underground is what Christians did during the persecutions of Rome. If the above is correct, that we should violently respond to this, then why is it that the early Christians did not under those same, if not worse scenarios?

I don't ever find a call to violence in scripture for those who are persecuted, which is the case which the OP is referring to. Jesus taught nonviolent resistance to such things. "Put away your sword", not "take up arms".
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
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.

I think we had a thread posted recently showing that peaceable protest being more effective than violent protest. Violence begets violence and usually ends up with the cost being too great to the side which gives up/in.

I'd have to say no. I don't see belief as being worth becoming violent over. It's just a belief, could be right, could be wrong. Not worth going and beating someone over the head for.

Personally, as long as civil laws are kept, I don't really care what folks choose to believe.
 

Shad

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.

Yes.

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

I believe government has no business regulating what is in my head.

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 am thinking of historical example such as France, Germany and England during the Reformation or Communism before the change of heart.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't ever find a call to violence in scripture for those who are persecuted

There isn't, I agree with you on that score. Sorry for the confusion on my part (its been a long day for me and I evidently need a sleep :D)!

Between the OP and my post above, the discussion had mutated into a wider one of whether violence could ever be justified in response to violations of fundamental freedoms. I think the developing conversation muddled me (i.e. Polymath arguing earlier on, "if the government tries to take these away [your rights to peaceful assembly and expression], there are times when violent revolution is the correct thing to do".) Catholic doctrine recognises a right of revolution for people in certain circumstances.

You're right that persecuted Christian communities in the Roman Empire did construct an underground catacomb network, for instance beneath the city of Rome, where they could practise their faith in secret without molestation (often using hidden hand gestures and signs, such as drawing the fish symbol in sand) during times when local governors took action against them or Empire-wide persecutions were ensuing.

The Roman martyrs never protected themselves with violence but rather died without harming their persecutors in return. They were "Anti-jihadis", so to speak, non-violent extremists.

But this is where we get to the pacifist discussion and its a very complicated issue.

Early Christianity was far more radical and absolutist when it came to non-violence. Around A.D. 150, St. Justin Martyr said that Christians of his time “refrain from making war upon our enemies” and would rather die than take a life in self-defense (“First Apology,” 1.39).

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397), another church father, reiterated the same:


Philip Schaff: NPNF2-10. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


Hence we infer that a man who guides himself according to the ruling of nature, so as to be obedient to her, can never injure another. If he injures another, he violates nature, nor will he think that what he has gained is so much an advantage as a disadvantage.

And what punishment is worse than the wounds of the conscience within? What judgment harder than that of our hearts, whereby each one stands convicted and accuses himself of the injury that he has wrongfully done against his brother?

For if there is one law of nature for all, there is also one state of usefulness for all. And we are bound by the law of nature to act for the good of all. It is not, therefore, right for him who wishes the interests of another to be considered according to nature, to injure him against the law of nature.

I do not think that a Christian, a just and a wise man, ought to save his own life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbour.

The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel...Christ would not be defended from the wounds of the persecutor, for He willed to heal all by His wounds.

He did, however, make the exception that it was a duty to defend other people from violence through the use of proportionate force:


"Ambrose of Milan argued that when a Christian confronts an armed robber, he may not use force in self-defence, "lest in defending his life he should stain his love for his neighbour". However, if the armed robber attacked a neighbour, the Christian, in fulfilling his duty to love others, had a moral obligation to defend the innocent victim [...] The principle of charity thus places on a believers a major duty to care for others, allowing, as a last resort, limited, proportionate force to halt injustice"

(International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics p.110)


To be fair, this often was combined with passive resistance but it still tended to be absolutely uncompromising.

For example, St. Perpetua - a young Roman mother and noblewoman from North Africa - converted to Christianity in the early third century (the year 203 CE, to be precise) and was sentenced to death in the Colosseum, along with all the other members of her church, for abandoning the gods of her ancestors and the state cult of the divine emperor.

The horrendous spectacle of her martyrdom was also an act of non-violent resistance against Roman society and its discrimination against her beliefs:

Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Ethical/The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas/Argument VI - Wikisource, the free online library


“While” says she, “we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith,—‘Father,’ said I, ‘do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?’ And he said, ‘I see it to be so.’ And I replied to him, ‘Can it be called by any other name than what it is?’ And he said, ‘No.’ ‘Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.’ ...

And when they were brought to the gate, and were constrained to put on the clothing—the men, that of the priests of Saturn, and the women, that of those who were consecrated to Ceres—that noble-minded woman resisted even to the end with constancy. For she said, “We have come thus far of our own accord, for this reason, that our liberty might not be restrained. For this reason we have yielded our minds, that we might not do any such thing as this: we have agreed on this with you.” Injustice acknowledged the justice; the tribune yielded to their being brought as simply as they were.

When they came within sight of Hilarianus, by gesture and nod, they began to say to Hilarianus, “Thou judgest us,” say they, “but God will judge thee.” At this the people, exasperated, demanded that they should be tormented with scourges as they passed along the rank of the venatores...


The populace shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being recalled, they are unbound. Perpetua is first led in. She was tossed, and fell on her loins; and when she saw her tunic torn from her side, she drew it over her as a veil for her middle, rather mindful of her modesty than her suffering. Then she was called for again, and bound up her dishevelled hair; for it was not becoming for a martyr to suffer with dishevelled hair, lest she should appear to be mourning in her glory...

The rest indeed, immoveable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat


St. Perpetua was to be murdered in front of the crowd by a young gladiator (let's remember, he was a slave promised his freedom if he killed her) whose hand 'wavered' because he didn't want to kill a young mother in cold blood. So she actually guided his wavering hand to her throat and did it for him.

In this way, she and her fellow martyrs exposed the injustice of the local governor's enforcement of the laws against Christians. She 'loved' her enemy and had compassion on him (likely understanding that he had no choice and was simply himself a victim of a cruel system).

However, killing someone - even in self-defense- has always been prohibited for Catholic priests and monastics; a priest is not supposed to strike back. If he does it to save someone else, this is noble, but the fact still remains that he took a life. Under the old canons, if a priest kills someone who is threatening his life - even by accident - he is deemed irregular and can no longer serve i.e. handle the Eucharist.

Pope St. Pope Nicolas the Great [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] in his Decretals (858 CE) ruled plainly:


“Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree; know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever.”

As St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) explains in his medieval Summa:


Aquinas on warfare and self-defense | Gerald W. Schlabach


Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons...All the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally.

Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular.

Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight...

Prelates ought to withstand not only the wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm; not, however, by having recourse themselves to material arms, but by means of spiritual weapons


Many people who have killed in self-defense are still haunted by nightmares about what happened due to the psychiatric effect of ending another person's life, even if you couldn't avoid it and even though no sin attaches for so doing.

According to Catholic and Orthodox Christian theology, in the ideal pre-fallen world, killing would have been absolutely forbidden under all circumstances; since even in self-defense, killing ends the existence of a human being created in God's image and willed into existence by Him. As Saint Agobard (799-840), archbishop of Lyons, put it: “Whoever spills human blood, His (God’s) blood is spilled as well: For man is made in the image of God”.

In the fallen world, its understood that the laity must make compromises with evil and so they are not held to this (for the vast majority unrealistic) standard but in the early church, it seems almost (or rather effectively all) Christians were held to this standard.

Among the Amish and some other Christian sects, this teaching is still universally binding. They are completely and utterly non-violent even in self-defence, they simply cannot harm another living soul even if the assailant means to kill them.

For Catholic and Orthodox laity today, though, retaliating with force or arms in self defense is never "ok" but it has to be done sometimes. Clergy are still held to the much higher standard.

I think its probable that Ghandi - since he called even 'justified' self-defence violence "unlawful" - may have done this himself if in such a situation, even if he didn't expect it of others because of his pragmatism and compassion for the hard comprises with the realities of life that ordinary laity must make.

But if asked, do I think that Christ would ever have killed someone or injured them even in self-defence? Honestly, I believe he wouldn't have and didn't.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's been proven through out history that violence is never the fix.
If that was the case then why are police officers armed and willing to use force?

Like it or not we are ruled by physical force. It's always been that way, and violence is what shapes our society our territories and the world for that matter.

If you don't obey somebody's going to come along and hit you and do whatever it takes to get you to comply. Guaranteed.

Violence may not be exactly a fix or solution but it will always be the preferred means of control and getting your way.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
In my opinion, violence should never be one's baseline method for effecting constitutional change - not even in situations where fundamental rights have been threatened or suppressed by a government (such as 'religious liberty' or 'freedom of conscience'). If a given ideology adheres to such a framework or dialectic - as with Marxist-Leninism - however sympathetic I may be to its broad goals in theory, I would find myself unable to countenance it in practice and therefore feel obligated in conscience to withhold my support from any insurrectionist endeavours.

I am especially opposed to armed struggle if the violent strategies or tactics in question, involve any acts of indiscriminate terror with civilians as casualties, as is liable to occur in low-level, guerrilla conflicts reliant upon paramilitary forces. This is not ethical or justified under any circumstances, however bad the situation may be.

But the many, many caveats are necessary qualifications, since I hope this would be the very last option.

In reference to 'war' more specifically (as opposed to armed violence in general), until the day comes when we have a true juridification of international law backed up by a global tribunal or government with the authority to actually arbitrate disputes effectively (with real sanctioning power), as occurs between states in a federation or indeed between nations within a supranational union like the EU, wars are always a possibility that will haunt us - and a limited number can be justifiable given the lack of any legal and efficacious alternatives under the present order, just like it would be legitimate and proportionate to use force to defend one's life if assaulted by an armed assassin intent on killing you in the street. The possibility of there being territoriality annexationist or genocidal regimes means that we must extend that same principle, which applies on the individual level, to entire groups of people as well.
There isn't, I agree with you on that score. Sorry for the confusion on my part (its been a long day for me and I evidently need a sleep :D)!

Between the OP and my post above, the discussion had mutated into a wider one of whether violence could ever be justified in response to violations of fundamental freedoms. I think the developing conversation muddled me (i.e. Polymath arguing earlier on, "if the government tries to take these away [your rights to peaceful assembly and expression], there are times when violent revolution is the correct thing to do".) Catholic doctrine recognises a right of revolution for people in certain circumstances.

And that is where one needs to be careful - I believe both Gandhi (and it is Gandhi not Ghandi) and MLK - in a sense lucked out - that the people they were facing had a modicum of decency and humanity along with the less desirable traits.

I would introduce you to the story of a person known as Tegh Bahadur - he went voluntarily to try to reason with an avowed religious bigot knowing that there was not much chance of success but wanting to give peace every chance -

His son later - having successfully resisted the efforts at forced religious conversion - wrote in Persian the below couplet

upload_2020-2-24_17-44-1.png


I have often come across those that advocate extreme pacifism - well there is IMO a problem with that - not only will you be wiped out but then the aggressor is left to do the same to others -

again - IMO - Guru Gobind Singh sets the standard - try non violent means to the point of sacrificing your life or that of a loved one - that is bar at which point resorting to less pacifist means would be okay
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
And that is where one needs to be careful - I believe both Gandhi (and it is Gandhi not Ghandi) and MLK - in a sense lucked out - that the people they were facing had a modicum of decency and humanity along with the less desirable traits.

I would introduce you to the story of a person known as Tegh Bahadur - he went voluntarily to try to reason with an avowed religious bigot knowing that there was not much chance of success but wanting to give peace every chance -

His son later - having successfully resisted the efforts at forced religious conversion - wrote in Persian the below couplet

View attachment 37403

I have often come across those that advocate extreme pacifism - well there is IMO a problem with that - not only will you be wiped out but then the aggressor is left to do the same to others -

again - IMO - Guru Gobind Singh sets the standard - try non violent means to the point of sacrificing your life or that of a loved one - that is bar at which point resorting to less pacifist means would be okay


I have for a long time held the Sikh Gurus (and the other sages in the Guru Granth Sahib ji such as Bhagat Kabir ji) in very high regard for their wisdom, progressive ideals and pragmatism. I had the pleasure of reading the Granth in my late teens courtesy of a Sikh friend, who kindly explained to me that for him it was the 'living Guru' and I learned about such things as the importance of the concept of hukam.

It was in that context that I first heard about the martyrdom of another of the Sikh Gurus, Arjan Dev. A Jesuit priest then domiciled in Lahore had been the first person to write an account of his execution and it has always stuck with me:


"...The earliest reference to the Sikhs by any European has come to us in a letter of Sep.25, 1606 of Father Jerome Xavier [a Catholic priest] written from Lahore to the Jesuits Provincial Supervisor of Goa. In this letter he talks about Guru Arjan's holy and saintly personality who enjoyed dignity and reputation as well. He testifies that before his martyrdom Guru Arjan went through a series of torture..."

- Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Head, Dept. of Guru Nanak Studies G. N. D. University, Amritsar

"...A Jesuit, Father Jerome Xavier, who witnessed all these goings-on, in a letter he wrote from Lahore on September 25, 1606, says: "In that way their good Pope died, overwhelmed by the sufferings, torments, and dishonours." ..."

- T. SHER SINGH



Its said that for the Sikh community, this tragedy marked the 'coming-of-age' of their panth, when they first had to reckon with the need for a call to arms / uprising in defence of the right of religious freedom for their community, which had first been called for by the martyred Gurū’s son, Hargobind. Prior to this, as I believe you allude to in the above, Sikhs had maintained largely passive resistance to the Mughal Empire. It's an interesting historical development.


From the account:


A Jesuit Account of Gurū Arjan’s Martyrdom, 1606


"When the Prince [Khusrau] came flying from Agra, he passed where a gentile called Guru (Goru), who amongst the gentiles is like the Pope amongst us. He was held as a saint and was as such venerated; because of this reputation of his and because of his high dignity the Prince went to see him, desiring, as it seems, some good prophecy. He gave him the good news of his new reign and gave him a tikka (otria) on his fore-head; although this man (the Guru) was a gentile and the Prince, a Moor [Muslim]; to the pon-tiff [Guru] it seemed that it would be good to give this symbol peculiar to gentiles, as a sign of success in his undertaking; as the Prince was the son of a gentile woman and because of the prince's opinion of his saintliness.

The King [Jahangfr] came to know of this and after having imprisoned the Prince he ordered for the said Guru (Gorii) to be brought. Having him imprisoned, some gentiles interceded for their saint: finally they managed to get him sentenced to a hundred thousand cruzados, a petition of a rich gentile who remained his guarantor. This individual took care that either the King (El-Rei) annul this sentence or the saint have or at least negotiate that money; but in all he got frustrated; and he seized from his poor Pope [Guru] everything he could find not sparing his clothes nor the clothes of his wife and sons; and seeing that all of this was not enough, as the gentiles don't have loyalty towards neither Pope [Guru] or father regarding money, each and every day he gave new torments and gave new affronts to the poor saint.

He ordered him to be beaten many times with shoes on his face and forbade him to eat, so that he (the Guru) would give him more money, as he was not willing to believe that he did not have it, but he did not have it nor did he find anyone who would give it to him; and thus amongst many trials, pains and torments the poor Guru (Goru) died.- The guarantor tried to save himself, but he was imprisoned and killed after they had taken everything they could find
"

- Father Jerome Francis Xavier, A Jesuit Account of Guru Arjan's Martyrdom, 1605
 
Last edited:

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
I have for a long time held the Sikh Gurus (and the other sages in the Guru Granth Sahib ji such as Bhagat Kabir ji) in very high regard for their wisdom, progressive ideals and pragmatism. I had the pleasure of reading the Granth in my late teens courtesy of a Sikh friend, who kindly explained to me that for him it was the 'living Guru' and I learned about such things as the importance of the concept of hukam.

In a sense it was repeated twice over in a brief period of time - as you state - with Guru Arjan Dev and his son Guru Hargobind - who incidentally, was the father of Guru Tegh Bahadur - took up arms and made a policy of separating theology and politics - the concept of miri and piri - stating that religion should have no place in politics

I am impressed that you took the time to study a philosophical way of life (closer to Adwaita IMO) that may be somewhat at a tangent to prevailing mores

 

Heyo

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.
If a regime tries to limit religious liberty it is also going to (or has already) limit other liberties. It wouldn't be a fight just for religious liberty but against an authoritarian regime.
I wouldn't use "targeted lethal violence" but I'd fight with (then) illegal means and be prepared to defend myself, if necessary with lethal force.
 
Top