toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)

[The Berean]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Those are great words! :thumb: Too bad the men who stood behind those words didn't really believe those words.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you agree with the Beatles.:guitar:

Shake it up baby!

 

[Ktoyou]

Ok... and never mind what God wants... is that it?

What are you getting so upset about?

 

[John Mortimer]

What are you getting so upset about?

I'm getting upset about the fact that there are people who will take the Bible and use it to try and control others.

I could do the same...

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

...I could use that scripture in that way. But you know - the whole game stinks to high heaven... you all want "God" to be what you want God to be. To hell with you all.

 

[Ktoyou]

Those are great words! :thumb: Too bad the men who stood behind those words didn't really believe those words.

Well, that was a long letter to King George. I think that is why they did not say what John Locke said, "live, liberty and pursuit of property" As old Gorge would then think, "that is what they want, my property."

I do believe the intention was to tell the king that the colonies did not what a king or entitles nobles and they wanted to be happy and would not be happy with taxes on tea.:wave2:

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Well, that was a long letter to King George. I think that is why they did not say what John Locke said, "live, liberty and pursuit of property" As old Gorge would then think, "that is what they want, my property."

I don't trust John Locke.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

:doh: oops, sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Ktoyou]

I'm getting upset about the fact that there are people who will take the Bible and use it to try and control others.

I could do the same...

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

...I could use that scripture in that way. But you know - the whole game stinks to high heaven... you all want "God" to be what you want God to be. To hell with you all.

Now now, just calm down. This thread is more about if the people have the right to revolution and on what moral grounds. TOL has many more threads on what God wants us to do, so cool it, and look at some of those threads. Okey dokey?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

I'm getting upset about the fact that there are people who will take the Bible and use it to try and control others.

To hell with you all.

:rotfl:

 

[Ktoyou]

I don't trust John Locke.

Well, he is a dead guy now, so I would not trust him either. I do think property is more precise than happiness. Are you happy? Am I happy? Well, I would be happier being healthy and riding a horse in Texas than confines to a bed, unless I wish to risk falling down. Now that is tough on me, but I would say I am happy.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Well, he is a dead guy now

You think? Desmond hit him pretty hard, but :idunno:

 

[Ktoyou]

You think? Desmond hit him pretty hard, but :idunno:

Desmond Hume
or
Desmond Dekker and the Dynamos

 

[ragTagblues]

Hmm I agree with most that there should be know moral reason on a political spectrum for a revolution to occur within a democracy. We all have one vote and that one vote does count (I trust that this is the case, for I do not vote and never intend to) to something in the large scale.

However, what if you come to vote in a situation where no government is the right government or there is nothing to choose between them and their all wrong?

What options do you have then as a public?

This I fear is the situation in England at the moment, we have the three main parties that are all severely faulted - The Labour Party are so unimaginative it considers beige a colourful addition to topical conversation, The Torries who seem to have the sincerity of injury lawyers and about as much political suave as a cup of tea that is growing quite a delightful civilisation under my bed. The Liberals don't count as up until recently I didn't know Nick Clegg was a politician yet alone the leader of a party however small.

These are the options and they all suck and lets not kid ourselves that a parties like UKIP or the Green Party could pull it off because that is horse-hockey and English people simply aren't outgoing and flexible enough to vote that way.

So revolution? No, probably not. British people just don't have it in them.

So we could end up with a party like the BNP doing very well in the elections and that will be very bad for this country. I seem to think this is similar to how Hitler came to power and look how well that went. . . .

Sorry I tangented, once I started I had to finish and let go of the frustrations that British politics cause.

In any case I don't think revolution should be morally justifiable in a democracy . . .

 

[amosman]

toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)

Well one man does not make a revolution. So there has to be enough people indignant about the status qou. Then they must be willing to lose what they have left in order to change the status qou for those that follow after them. In a true revolution people will die. So as long as we can bare the indignation, we will. Men can justify about anything for about any reason but for a revolution to be justified in Gods eye it would have to be one that is brought about through divine intervention.

 

[fool]

Isn't revulsion an involentary reflex like sneezing?

 

[nicholsmom]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 16th, 2010 09:50 AM

toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)

I agree with the founders of our nation:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.​

Happily, our government was made for revolution by way of the voters' booth. The people seem to be disposed to suffer only so long before they turn things around completely. Let us hope that the coming election cycles will prove effective in accomplishing a satisfactory revolution.

 

[elohiym]

Happily, our government was made for revolution by way of the voters' booth.

Voting is a facade to make the debt slaves feel like they actually can change things.

Some people actually believe they got change with Obama. :rotfl:

 

[The Graphite]

Well, he is a dead guy now, so I would not trust him either.

Nor would I, since he's burning in Hades right now, as a humanist who rejects the sinfulness of mankind (and therefore any need for a savior or salvation).

 

[Lighthouse]

This question's occupied me for quite a while. Not because I'm of a particularly revolutionary bent or anything but because the question boggles me and I just can't stand that.

The single point that throws this question out of whack for any democratic form of government is, of course, the vote. I would think before the question could even become relevant one's vote would have to be rendered impotent.

Am I correct in saying that as long as we have an effectual vote and thus a peaceful means of control over our own government then violent revolution of any sort is not an acceptable option? In fact, I'd say any other kind of revolution that you could think up that doesn't utilize the vote is as well.

Do you think the vote is currently effectual?

Ok... does that mean alter or abolish by means of physical violence?

Have you not read the Constitution?

Here, nicholsmom quoted it:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

 

[The Horn]

At present there's absolutely no justification for a revolution asgainst the Obama administration. The tea partiers are just a bunch of pathetically ignorant, gullible and deluded people who have been mislead into believing that Obama is a communist dictator who is going to turn America into another communist dictatorship, which is ludicrous.
But there's about as much chance of this happening under Obama as Osama Bin Laden converting to Judaism and settling in Israel.
Mass hysteria against Obama has been fostered by conservative pundits such as Limbaugh,Hannity,Levin, Malkin, Beck and others .
And if such a revolution were to happen, it would merely create a right-wing totalitarian dictatorship little better than a communist one.