Defending religious liberty with violence

[Windwalker]

Ah my bad. Nonviolent resistance.
It is of course not the same.

Substitute the correct words in what I said.
Any response to that?

I can try. Here's what you originally said, which I'll now address with the correct understanding of nonviolent resistance, versus passive compliance.

In bold, too vague to have any particular meaning.
Sure, dont bomb the police station coz you think the
speed trap was unfair.
But something like forcible conversion to islam?

I think a good example here would be the Tibetan people and China, don't you think? They resist having interference in their religion from the Chinese government. They are not passively accepting it at all. They resist it nonviolently. And the times they are violent, it is not towards others but in acts of self-immolations as a protest against such aggressions towards them and their religious beliefs and practices.

But if that's too charged of an example, let's assume some Muslim hoard swept in and forced all the citizens of a village to convert to Islam, and I was part of that village and didn't believe anything that the invading force believed in. I suppose that becomes a choice of options.

One of those options might be to just go along with it, as a form of survive another day in the hopes the next they will be gone and I could openly practice my own beliefs again. A strategic retreat, would be an option, where while you may go through the forms of the religion imposed upon you, it's nothing that can actually invade your own heart because you can't force what someone believes in, only what they publicly say and do. Technically, they wouldn't be forcing it upon me, because while I could pretend in order to survive, which is frankly all they care about anyway, they can't actually touch what is privately held inside of me.

But at the same time, an invading hoard is something to be opposed, violently, if something like violence could actually stop them. They are after all, killing people in the invasion. But if violence served no strategic purpose, then other nonviolent resistance options would be the better choice.

A profound injustice, and one against which I
personally would fight to the death, I will not
submit to it.
If its cool with you to be forced to this, or that,
its on you.

Personally, I see religious beliefs as not a cause for fighting to the death. One reason alone, I've changed how I believe all the time. How stupid would it have been for me to kill someone else fighting for a belief that later in life I abandoned on my own? Violence is not an act of courage, but fear.

But let's say it's some really stupid religion, like some snake-handling, holy-roller religion saying I have to believe God created the earth 6000 years ago, and all modern science needs to be discarded in favor of the King James Bible as final authority on matters of faith and science? I would do everything within my powers to resist that happening. But if they won the day in politics, saying electing an authoritarian Orange dictator to force their peculiar flavor of religion upon the masses, with the full force of the military behind them?

I would do everything in power to resist them, nonviolently. If I couldn't, then I would survive, or let them kill me for refusal to comply, if I felt that strongly about it. This is exactly what the early Christian church did when Rome outlawed their religion. It's what other religions do today in countries like China. They go underground to survive.

But you cannot preach passive acceptance
as some universal virtue, and not get called on it
because it is garbage.

I don't preach passive acceptance, nor do I preach nonviolent resistance. I am telling you that nonviolent resistance is what folks like Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, and others have practiced, and that I believe it to be a better, more effective and more powerful solution than violence. That's not garbage. That's proven fact.

Nonviolent resistance is more powerful than violence when it comes to social change. Invading hordes on a battlefield threatening your lands and your lives? Then defend with whatever means are necessary. Your village is about to be destroyed and all your loved ones with you.

 

[Audie]

I can try. Here's what you originally said, which I'll now address with the correct understanding of nonviolent resistance, versus passive compliance.


I think a good example here would be the Tibetan people and China, don't you think? They resist having interference in their religion from the Chinese government. They are not passively accepting it at all. They resist it nonviolently. And the times they are violent, it is not towards others but in acts of self-immolations as a protest against such aggressions towards them and their religious beliefs and practices.

But if that's too charged of an example, let's assume some Muslim hoard swept in and forced all the citizens of a village to convert to Islam, and I was part of that village and didn't believe anything that the invading force believed in. I suppose that becomes a choice of options.

One of those options might be to just go along with it, as a form of survive another day in the hopes the next they will be gone and I could openly practice my own beliefs again. A strategic retreat, would be an option, where while you may go through the forms of the religion imposed upon you, it's nothing that can actually invade your own heart because you can't force what someone believes in, only what they publicly say and do. Technically, they wouldn't be forcing it upon me, because while I could pretend in order to survive, which is frankly all they care about anyway, they can't actually touch what is privately held inside of me.

But at the same time, an invading hoard is something to be opposed, violently, if something like violence could actually stop them. They are after all, killing people in the invasion. But if violence served no strategic purpose, then other nonviolent resistance options would be the better choice.


Personally, I see religious beliefs as not a cause for fighting to the death. One reason alone, I've changed how I believe all the time. How stupid would it have been for me to kill someone else fighting for a belief that later in life I abandoned on my own? Violence is not an act of courage, but fear.

But let's say it's some really stupid religion, like some snake-handling, holy-roller religion saying I have to believe God created the earth 6000 years ago, and all modern science needs to be discarded in favor of the King James Bible as final authority on matters of faith and science? I would do everything within my powers to resist that happening. But if they won the day in politics, saying electing an authoritarian Orange dictator to force their peculiar flavor of religion upon the masses, with the full force of the military behind them?

I would do everything in power to resist them, nonviolently. If I couldn't, then I would survive, or let them kill me for refusal to comply, if I felt that strongly about it. This is exactly what the early Christian church did when Rome outlawed their religion. It's what other religions do today in countries like China. They go underground to survive.


I don't preach passive acceptance, nor do I preach nonviolent resistance. I am telling you that nonviolent resistance is what folks like Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, and others have practiced, and that I believe it to be a better, more effective and more powerful solution than violence. That's not garbage. That's proven fact.

Tough to find enough disagreement to put into a post.
One detail though, is that "islam" is not just a belief,
but is used as a system for cruel and violent oppression of
women.

Oh and Tibet.. dont get me started.

Oh and edit. "ONE" cannot preach...." Not you in particular.

 

[Windwalker]

Tough to find enough disagreement to put into a post.

That's because I are so smart.

One detail though, is that "islam" is not just a belief,
but is used as a system for cruel and violent oppression of
women.

One could say that about Patriarchal systems in general. In the more primitive forms of it, like in some Islamic countries, you have more overt displays of violence towards women. In more sophisticated forms of Patriarchy, like in more modern societies, that oppression is less overt, like blaming victims of rape for getting raped, denying women the vote, unequal pay for equal work, and so forth.

But it's still the same thing, coming from the same place of masculine insecurity. That should be resisted, regardless of how overt or subtle that violent oppression appears. While it's true that change happens one funeral at a time, I think those funerals should happen due to age, not murder.

 

[Audie]

That's because I are so smart.


One could say that about Patriarchal systems in general. In the more primitive forms of it, like in some Islamic countries, you have more overt displays of violence towards women. In more sophisticated forms of Patriarchy, like in more modern societies, that oppression is less overt, like blaming victims of rape for getting raped, denying women the vote, unequal pay for equal work, and so forth. But it's still the same thing, coming from the same place of masculine insecurity.

Smart enough not to argue with me is good.

As for the role of women, that is for sure an endless topic.
Overall, I've no particular complaint about my role in either
the US or HK.
For me life in a place like Pakistan would be pure hell.

 

[Windwalker]

Smart enough not to argue with me is good.

Har har.

As for the role of women, that is for sure an endless topic.
Overall, I've no particular complaint about my role in either
the US or HK.

Oh, you're in Hong Kong? I didn't realize that. Hah, there's some major resistance going on there too as I recall, some violent clashes. That's all pretty close to home for you then, unlike for me tucked away in some cornfield in the upper midwest somewhere where I can speak my views from the safety of my living room.

For me life in a place like Pakistan would be pure hell.

I can't say I'd find it exactly heaven myself either. The minute I spoke the truth of my thoughts about anything, would probably be my last.

 

[ManSinha]

I don't preach passive acceptance, nor do I preach nonviolent resistance. I am telling you that nonviolent resistance is what folks like Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, and others have practiced, and that I believe it to be a better, more effective and more powerful solution than violence. That's not garbage. That's proven fact.

Yes and no

See post #57

 

[Audie]

Har har.


Oh, you're in Hong Kong? I didn't realize that. Hah, there's some major resistance going on there too as I recall, some violent clashes. That's all pretty close to home for you then, unlike for me tucked away in some cornfield in the upper midwest somewhere where I can speak my views from the safety of my living room.


I can't say I'd find it exactly heaven myself either. The minute I spoke the truth of my thoughts about anything, would probably be my last.

Moved back here from NYC a few months ago.
I stay up pretty late like this, as Americans are in
such a goofy time zone and wont do business
at sensible hours.

Dont even know it is already tomorrow here.

Things have not been very good here, I hope it
will all change sometime soon. We are facing
an epidemic, recession, and political chaos /
violent repression.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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 would initially want to fight - but examples from the scriptures show prophets and other faithful believers submitting to such persecution with humility.

If - however - I was met with violence because of my faith - I would defend myself and others.

 

[gnostic]

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 on a lot of factors.

So sure...but it really depends on motivations on both sides.

But what if certain religions are themselves the cause of oppression and persecution?

It is just atheism vs religion, or politics vs religions. History have shown, repeatedly that people follow religions are the violet oppressors.

And it isn’t just religion against religion, there are violence against one sect over the other (eg Sunni vs Shia, Catholics vs Eastern Orthodox, Catholics vs Protestants, Protestant vs Protestant, Buddhism vs Taoism, and so on).

In Australia, violence among believers have been kept to minimal. But Christians haven’t been all that welcoming to other religions. They have churches everywhere, but when Muslims try to get permit to built just one mosque, you get lines of protesters.

Of course, not all Australian Christians act like this, but how are these few angry Christians any better than Muslims in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan with Christians carrying Bible in public, former Muslims turn Christians?

I think that some religious people are their own worse enemies. They demand certain rights - special rights - always demanding exceptions for one matter, exemptions from other matter. When they do have powers they oppress others.

Sorry, Eddi, but I have to ask you:

Is violence the only solution against oppression?
What if the religion or sect becomes the oppressors?

 

[Eddi]

Sorry, Eddi, but I have to ask you:

Is violence the only solution against oppression?
What if the religion or sect becomes the oppressors?

1) No, but it is an option, and ideally shouldn't be Plan A
2) Then they should be somehow resisted

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can think of way worse advice than what the bible has to offer

You anticipate me superbly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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 see it as a small suite of related questions.. To fight for? To die for? To live for? I would rather live for what I believe in, even if that meant taking on a fight I might lose. I'm not sure if that makes sense to anyone, but I have been sick in bed for the last five days. I am afraid that is as much sense as I can make right now.