Violence vs Non-Violence           

By Any Means Necessary – El Haj Malik El Shabbazz

If history has shown us anything, it is that we are a violent species.  One can and does make an argument for societal factors such as poverty, land rights, and of course religion, but as we have seen by observing the lesser primates such as chimpanzee, violence seems to be an inevitable make up of our DNA.  So violence is a forgone conclusion, it will happen.  However there has been a seemingly never-ending and ongoing debate whether to use violence or non-violence when it comes to fighting the fight. Ghandi and Dr. King both died in support of a non-violent movement and both were able to achieve change as a result of their non-action.  Generally speaking, I would like to think of myself as a person of non-violence.  It takes work to be this way because after all, conflict is much easier than conflict resolution. However, I’ve been thinking a lot about the cause we are all here fighting for.  The cause of basic human rights to believe or not believe whatever it is you choose to.  So much of what I have seen and heard in the news and on the internet has made me furious. Whether it is against atheists or homosexuals, it seems the right will stop at nothing to push an agenda that goes against the grains of basic human morals and decency.  I would venture to say the LGBT community has made more strides and has had more victories than atheists, but then again, in many ways our fight has just really taken off.  Yet as I see the field of Republican candidates gearing up for the 2012 elections, it seems not one is a moderate and all have made it clear that the conservative agenda is what this country needs to return to.  Michelle Bachman has openly stated she feels intelligent design should be taught beside evolution theory in science class.  The idea of a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Republican leaning Supreme Court honestly frightens me.  What would this country look like?

So I ask you this my friends;  If there came a time where we were challenged as atheists, and laws proposed and passed that would tear down the wall between church and state, would you fight “by any means necessary” or would you turn the other cheek as it were and try to stand up by sitting down?  What lengths would you go to in order to fight for what you believe in?  Is violence every necessary? What would you do?

Views: 295

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Always a fun line to hear from someone who is richer than me. :)

Give me my payday, or else..

Non-Violence is a political tactic that must be employed, it has nothing to do with sitting at home and worrying about whether the current struggles of groups and just plain mobs crying out for a change in their government are justified in your opinion to use violence.   Talk about an armchair quarterback!

Using non-violence means deliberately putting yourself in a position in which you know your enemy will be forced to use violence in response then his thugs do it to you without fighting back.

If you're out there throwing rocks and shooting and trying to kill the other guy then all the drones watching the media/Net see is just another war. You can't tell who was right in a war until it's over.  Might makes Right...or, at least, survival does.  Long life to the wise and may the fools die young!

You get the image of a group of, women and children dressed in white robes with nothing in their hands but the two hands of the people on either side walking across the killing field and being gunned down by the get that picture, that video going out over the media/Net then the war is over and you've won.  The rest is just sweeping out the garbage.

That's how you use non-violence. 

*That's how you commit suicide.
that's how you die for a cause
Isn't that the definition of martyrdom..?

"a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice." 


what's your point?

I wouldn't martyr myself over any cause because I wouldn't commit suicide under any circumstance. I wouldn't even jump in an icy river to save someone from drowning, much less pour a can of gasoline over myself and light up, or join any crowd determined to overthrow a government. Try peacefully protesting your way into the White House.

Peaceful protests only work against those who hesitate before shooting you. And even then, they might resort to giving you your own cell at Gitmo if they are scared enough of you. ;)

As a side note, Truman did a lot more to free India than Ghandi.


Have you ever heard of suicide by cop?  Violence as a political tactic can be as much death wish as non-violence.   

Change, as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison et. al. knew, comes from violence.  Hitler found that out, too.  The Red Army had its artillery hub-to-hub around Berlin.  Too bad it took so long and so many lives to do away with Hitler.


10,000 of our bankers and CEO's executed would pave the way for wonderful change.  (I use that number because only 1500 aristocrats and 38,500 of their lackeys had to die in the French Revolution to bring the middle class into french politics, a small price to pay.  We are proportionately larger, soo 10,000.  'Course there'll be the asskissers, sycophants, leeches, and toadies who'll get in the way, but..

So no mortgage industry would be the result (why would anyone lend money when their lifes are at stake?).

In addition, I want everything you earn in excess of what I do and any assets you have which are in the black because I'm technically bankrupt for the next 10 years, a slave to the corporate machine and an expensive mortgage from the evil banks.

I'm ready to take it by force if it becomes legal. 

"bankers this bankers that"; we need to stop blaming imaginary outside 3rd parties for our problems and do something with our lives. I find this "blaming others" pretty weak morally and find it characteristic of Muslims "blaming the Jews" for all  their problems when in reality the problems lie within themselves.
Capitalism is no imaginary enemy; it is the enemy, plain and clear, as the workers 1890-1940 knew.  'Course then we got distracted by "communism" that great booger man.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service