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: 180

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you truly believe that, please remit the part of your wealth over -$100.000 to me immediately to ensure equal distribution of wealth between us.

Otherwise you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is my middle name, and I'm unlikely to go it alone in making you wealthy.

I don't seek all your wealth, just equal distribution of it between us. Armed revolution against capitalist oppressors like yourself, and so forth. :)

Retired teachers of English in public schools are rarely called capitalist oppressors, and I thank you most sincerely.

You may wish to check out the average income in the country I live in and compare it to your own. I find that people who earn more than my $1200 per month (52% taxes have been deducted to a government I cannot vote for) complaining about other people having too much money, have too much money themselves.

Essentially, you are nothing but a true bourgeoisie whom I would gladly liberate the means of production from. Analyzing Das Kapital was a requirement in my education, and having done so is a requirement for having a valid opinion. You clearly haven't. :)

"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."

I remember long threads about illegals bring down our society, but casino banking is ok?

Though not the OP, I believe I the answer to the naive question is: "Yes".

The underlying arguments are completely different, which should be glaringly obvious. In addition, whatever your perception of previous opinion of OP is, it bears no relation to the current opinion presented on a complete different subject.

It's hard to take the opinion of anyone unable to do such simple self-checks seriously.

I can't know until I reach a place where I feel moved to it. I am not anti violence, or pro violence. I think at some point if you don't take a swing you are letting more than just yourself down. But I can't know exactly what that point might look like. As long as we are in conversation that point is not reached, though. That much I am so far certain of.
Non-violence can work, but it must be judiciously used.  Choosing non-violence in the face of mortal threats is the equivalent of suicide.  Violence in self-defense can sometimes be justified.

Defensive measures  I stand up for at all times.  If someone attacks me and they are not stopping and doing everything they can to harm me or a loved one , I will do my best to impair them to such a degree that they will be close to dead.  

 

I would never willingly start an attack and I think nobody should.  But first attacks will probably always happen in humanity , so defensive measures need to be understood as protective measures.  

 

So violence I don't believe in.  Defense of violence I fully support.  

I am not sure that this is entirely apropos but I think Tina Fey had more to do with the outcome of the 2008 election than any one person apart from Obama himself. My point is, humor is a very powerful tool. By keeping up the pressure with showing fence sitters how ridiculous the radical right is, is far more effective than any punitive thing you may conceive of.

Suggesting violence as an option harkens back to the anarchist assassinating McKinley. While it may seem today that the anarchist succeeded, they didn't really achieve their goal.

But when the blast of war blows in our ears, 

Then imitate the action of the tiger,

Stiffen the sinews, Summon up the blood. - Henry V

This is the thing about religion - it is organised - generally, atheists are pretty placid people, but push ANYBODY too far, and they will retaliate. But atheists would have to get organised, which we aren't.

And it is only because religious people of all persuasions are getting in our face, and getting into secular schools more and more, that we have sites like this. 

I know that if my country were invaded, I would become a freedom fighter, or as some may prefer, a terrorist.

Plus I am a baby boomer. I protested at rallys against the Vietnam War and Nuclear weapons etc.

 

Seeing religions that are violent, Scientology, Catholics, Jehovah Witless, Mormon, the anti-gay's like Fred Phelps, certainly brings out the anger in me, so in this circumstance, I would not be violent, but huge rallies would be the way to go. I don't want the blood of atheists spilled.

So, yes,bring it on - people would have to get organised - that would be the hard part. There's also people like Jon Stewart that could possibly help - he has done that before.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service