Audie
Veteran Member
I can think of way worse advice than what the bible has to offer
Worse, and better, no challenge.
But for now, its good night lil audie good night.
Live Cam China - Hong Kong
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can think of way worse advice than what the bible has to offer
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 .
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.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.
Some of us are permanently drunkards and need no chemical to cause us to be such.I didn't know anyone posts on RF sober.
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.
What you will not defend, somebody else will try to take.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.
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 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.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.
My response of "Violence, no" was in regard to what he raised, which was this.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)?
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 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 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 don't ever find a call to violence in scripture for those who are persecuted
If that was the case then why are police officers armed and willing to use force?It's been proven through out history that violence is never the fix.
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 )!
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
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.
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.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.