You can't turn a square into a square.
toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Catatumba
New member
Volition is one of God's attributes; this basicly means that God has a 'will'.
Hope and will are in effect signify very similar outcomes. In the book to the Hebrews hope is used to describe the final reason of a good will; this reason is of course faith.
Re-volution is shift or another movement in one's will or spirit. When communal wills 'unite' and reach a particular denominator of purpose; then a Re-volution might be a good and just thought of the will and a reson to be.
Hope and will are in effect signify very similar outcomes. In the book to the Hebrews hope is used to describe the final reason of a good will; this reason is of course faith.
Re-volution is shift or another movement in one's will or spirit. When communal wills 'unite' and reach a particular denominator of purpose; then a Re-volution might be a good and just thought of the will and a reson to be.
Effectual? Yes. Generally used wisely or well? No.
But I think that so long as the people have the power to "overthrow" the government through the voting process, armed rebellion just isn't justifiable. I could even argue that if the people haven't the will or the wisdom to wield their voting power effectively in the first place then they can't be trusted to revolt either.
Overthrowing the government through voting could only be accomplished if we voted on every government position/seat/office at the same time and removed everyone currently in them. That is the only way it would be a revolution. And yet, the idea of overthrowing the government implies that you not only get rid of the people currently in the government, but you change the way the way they government operates on most, if not all, levels. Such as replacing our Constitutional Republic with a Constitutional Monarchy and throwing out democracy altogether.
elohiym
Well-known member
http://www.votefraud.org/
The vote has been so obviously compromised in so many ways, I'm surprised that people actually believe their vote counts for anything but their conscience.
give me liberty or give me death
did someone already say that?
did someone already say that?
Buzzword
New member
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
-Stalin
I guess I just assumed we were talking about something other than a minority group seizing control of the government and what would be required to justify that. :idunno:
The Graphite
New member
Most here would agree that a man has a right to self-defense and to defend of those who are in immediate or imminent harm. For detailed analysis of this principle and how it relates to when and whether a person has a God-given right to break the law, I completely defer to the beautifully-crafted "Vigilanteism Worksheet" created by Bob Enyart and published at the American Right to Life website.
In a nutshell, it explains in detail how in various situations that involve harm or imminent harm, there is necessarily an escalation of threat and response to threat. For example, if someone is on trial for murder, and you are a witness against them, and in court, while restrained, the criminal looks at you and says "When I get out of prison, I'll kill you!" do you have the right to pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? Of course not. The threat is not imminent. And when possible, you must go through a process of escalating your response according to the severity and immediacy of the threat. If that man gets out of prison, and tells a bartender that he intends to kill you, that is more immediate. However, you still don't have the right to go to his house and shoot him in the head. You should notify the police. And then go home and clean your gun.
Numerous examples are given in the worksheet, working through many detailed scenarios to show how a violent or lethal response is warranted in some of them but not others. There are cases where there is no escalation, but the only thing to be done is immediate, violent or even lethal force. There is a time for that.
Now, I would assert that these principles apply to this question of the day. After all, if we simply have a difference of opinion on some bureaucratic principle of how some agency is governed in Washington D.C., does that give us the right to march into their federal office with a gun and tell them to change it? Everybody with me -- "Of course not!" We all know that.
So, where is that line? I would assert that there is an escalation, just as on the individual level, and that, in fact, it starts at the individual level. It is a matter of self-defense.
Jesus made it clear (though not everyone here will agree but I consider that a separate debate) that if the gov't taxes us, we must submit to that rule of law. The existence of a tax, in and of itself, is appropriate. The degree or severity of the tax may or may not be administered justly.
What about physical threats? If a federal officer/agent comes to your door and threatens to harm your family, you certainly have a right to defend your family with up to lethal force. That pertains to your family and your home. If you see your neighbor facing imminent physical danger in the same way, you also have the right to defend them, in the same way. But, these are anecdotal situations.
So, what happens when it becomes systematic? That is when the practice of self-defense likewise becomes systematic. If you have a gang of criminals, for example, and they are attackiing your whole neighborhood, and there is no recourse with the police, such that they refuse to act, you certainly can organize your whole neighborhood so that you have a systematic practice of self-defense in the community.
If it is the government physically attacking your whole neighborhood, or community, the same principle therefore would apply. Systematic self-defense against a systematic threat.
All of this begs the question -- are we there yet, in America? No. The step-by-step process of escalation of force has not reached that point, definitely not. We still have peaceful means to change our country, and we have avenues of redress within the system, as well. Are there corruptions in the system? Absolutely. But we have not lost all ability to peacefully and politically seek redress.
If we lose all ability to seek redress peacefully and politically, and if the government then starts to systematically abuse its citizens physically, that is the point at which systematic self-defense will come into play. We are not there yet. There are incidents when agents of the government abuse their position, or employ unjust policies to limited degrees. However, the government isn't dragging whole classes of people into the streets, kidnapping thousands of people to press them into slavery, etc. (By the way, those things were occurring leading up to the American Revolution, and without getting too deeply into historical detail, I hold that this is why our nation was justified in rebelling and breaking free of unjust imperial British rule. And rather than start a tangent debate on that topic, I will add that if I were ever shown that there was not sufficient cause for the colonies to rebel, I would have no problem changing my mind and agreeing that they should not have done so. I would still stand on the principles above. After all, our ultimate loyalty should be to God before our nation. Right and wrong comes first.
Might that day be coming? Yes, it might. We are currently moving in that direction, and I don't have a lot of hope that this process will reverse. But there is always some hope.
In a nutshell, it explains in detail how in various situations that involve harm or imminent harm, there is necessarily an escalation of threat and response to threat. For example, if someone is on trial for murder, and you are a witness against them, and in court, while restrained, the criminal looks at you and says "When I get out of prison, I'll kill you!" do you have the right to pull out a gun and shoot him in the head? Of course not. The threat is not imminent. And when possible, you must go through a process of escalating your response according to the severity and immediacy of the threat. If that man gets out of prison, and tells a bartender that he intends to kill you, that is more immediate. However, you still don't have the right to go to his house and shoot him in the head. You should notify the police. And then go home and clean your gun.
Numerous examples are given in the worksheet, working through many detailed scenarios to show how a violent or lethal response is warranted in some of them but not others. There are cases where there is no escalation, but the only thing to be done is immediate, violent or even lethal force. There is a time for that.
Now, I would assert that these principles apply to this question of the day. After all, if we simply have a difference of opinion on some bureaucratic principle of how some agency is governed in Washington D.C., does that give us the right to march into their federal office with a gun and tell them to change it? Everybody with me -- "Of course not!" We all know that.
So, where is that line? I would assert that there is an escalation, just as on the individual level, and that, in fact, it starts at the individual level. It is a matter of self-defense.
Jesus made it clear (though not everyone here will agree but I consider that a separate debate) that if the gov't taxes us, we must submit to that rule of law. The existence of a tax, in and of itself, is appropriate. The degree or severity of the tax may or may not be administered justly.
What about physical threats? If a federal officer/agent comes to your door and threatens to harm your family, you certainly have a right to defend your family with up to lethal force. That pertains to your family and your home. If you see your neighbor facing imminent physical danger in the same way, you also have the right to defend them, in the same way. But, these are anecdotal situations.
So, what happens when it becomes systematic? That is when the practice of self-defense likewise becomes systematic. If you have a gang of criminals, for example, and they are attackiing your whole neighborhood, and there is no recourse with the police, such that they refuse to act, you certainly can organize your whole neighborhood so that you have a systematic practice of self-defense in the community.
If it is the government physically attacking your whole neighborhood, or community, the same principle therefore would apply. Systematic self-defense against a systematic threat.
All of this begs the question -- are we there yet, in America? No. The step-by-step process of escalation of force has not reached that point, definitely not. We still have peaceful means to change our country, and we have avenues of redress within the system, as well. Are there corruptions in the system? Absolutely. But we have not lost all ability to peacefully and politically seek redress.
If we lose all ability to seek redress peacefully and politically, and if the government then starts to systematically abuse its citizens physically, that is the point at which systematic self-defense will come into play. We are not there yet. There are incidents when agents of the government abuse their position, or employ unjust policies to limited degrees. However, the government isn't dragging whole classes of people into the streets, kidnapping thousands of people to press them into slavery, etc. (By the way, those things were occurring leading up to the American Revolution, and without getting too deeply into historical detail, I hold that this is why our nation was justified in rebelling and breaking free of unjust imperial British rule. And rather than start a tangent debate on that topic, I will add that if I were ever shown that there was not sufficient cause for the colonies to rebel, I would have no problem changing my mind and agreeing that they should not have done so. I would still stand on the principles above. After all, our ultimate loyalty should be to God before our nation. Right and wrong comes first.
Might that day be coming? Yes, it might. We are currently moving in that direction, and I don't have a lot of hope that this process will reverse. But there is always some hope.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
"That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Rag Party"....
Well it gets my vote
Egbert
New member
Morally speaking, I'd say that civil disobedience needs no particular justification beyond one's own desires.
If we're speaking of violent revolution, however, I'd say that it is justified when the highest levels of government advocate unjust harm. When said harm is significant and/or widespread, revolution would become a moral obligation. (And no, I'm not including indirect forms of harm like tariffs or endowments for the arts. I'm talking about acts of violence practiced with some predictability/consistency.)
If we're speaking of violent revolution, however, I'd say that it is justified when the highest levels of government advocate unjust harm. When said harm is significant and/or widespread, revolution would become a moral obligation. (And no, I'm not including indirect forms of harm like tariffs or endowments for the arts. I'm talking about acts of violence practiced with some predictability/consistency.)
Tactics are everything!
Tactics are everything!
Consider Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. They all advocated non-violent resistance to governmental malfeasance and immoral practices. They suffered personally and became role models for their followers. They put those in power and authority to shame. Eventually they effected significant changes for the better. peace, bybee
Tactics are everything!
Consider Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. They all advocated non-violent resistance to governmental malfeasance and immoral practices. They suffered personally and became role models for their followers. They put those in power and authority to shame. Eventually they effected significant changes for the better. peace, bybee
elohiym
Well-known member
Like murdering millions of unborn children by decree of law?
At what point is a revolution justified?
When it reaches 360 degrees? :think:
When it reaches 360 degrees? :think:
Newman
New member
So...The end justifies the means?
Well if three lefts makes it right, then I would say all four would certainly be justified.
< (one left)
v (two lefts)
> (three (right))
^ (one more, full circle, a revolution)
Egbert
New member
Considering the way you would define those terms, I'd probably put that in the same category as tariffs (assuming, just for the sake of argument, that it is even to be considered "harm").
Fixed that for you...So...The end justifies the jeans?
lain:
Sounds like someone invented democracy to keep the revolutionaries pre-occupied. :chuckle:
Ecumenicist
New member
At what point is killing innocent people justified? Yes, that includes the unborn and the already-born.
Ask the folks who survived Oklahoma City, and those who survived 9/11, and ask the relatives of those who didn't survive.
Violent revolutionaries, whether fascist, communist, jihadist, or survivalist, are all cut from the same paranoid sociopathic cloth. When the "message," the sociopathic, paranoid spirit, spreads to enough people, then it becomes revolution rather than just isolated incidents. Then alot of people suffer and die, and if the jihadists win, people end up being controlled by forces far worse than those whom the "revolutionaries" chose to target in the first place. If the jihadists are put down, the existing system of government takes away freedoms from everyone. (witness the patriot act.)
We need to learn to get along, love one another, love our enemies, those whom we disagree with. Love fixes things, fear and paranoia destroys things.
Ask the folks who survived Oklahoma City, and those who survived 9/11, and ask the relatives of those who didn't survive.
Violent revolutionaries, whether fascist, communist, jihadist, or survivalist, are all cut from the same paranoid sociopathic cloth. When the "message," the sociopathic, paranoid spirit, spreads to enough people, then it becomes revolution rather than just isolated incidents. Then alot of people suffer and die, and if the jihadists win, people end up being controlled by forces far worse than those whom the "revolutionaries" chose to target in the first place. If the jihadists are put down, the existing system of government takes away freedoms from everyone. (witness the patriot act.)
We need to learn to get along, love one another, love our enemies, those whom we disagree with. Love fixes things, fear and paranoia destroys things.
- Status