Is violence in the streets a legitimate/moral political tool?

There have been recent threads discussing specific aspects of incidents of violence, or debating the relative dangers of various groups. This thread is more general.

Do you think that beating, kicking, striking with weapons, shooting, are legitimate means to promote a political message?

If you think they are, in what circumstances would they be legitimate or moral?

If not, why not?

Do you think that such violence tends to escalate, or is just a localized phenomenon?

My view is that they should not be used for political purposes. People should use reason to promote their views, not violence.

The more we resort to violence the less we tend to discuss the issues constructively. At some point violence between factions can become about retaliation for past hurts, rather than the issues that started the disagreements in the first place.

Any person resorting to this should be arrested and prosecuted for violating laws against assault, murder, etc.

PeachyKeane said:

That depends entirely on who is being beaten and who is doing the beating now doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Well the OP did invite you to elaborate when it would be legitimate or moral.

But for my part I would say it does not in fact depend on who does it, or who receives the violence. Any person being violent should be arrested.

timothyu said:

There are no legitimate political tools if you look at it from a Christian aspect. There are however every human political reason to keep man divided and squabbling in order for the powers that be who take no sides, to maintain power over the masses.

Click to expand...

I have to think over the first part for a bit longer. Christianity was meant to go to all nations, appealing to people in all political systems. Of course, as Paul and Peter wrote they encouraged submission to the authorities, even granted that the emperor at the time was Nero.

The gospel, not political change, was the mission of the church.

However, non-violent resistance, usually through suffering, did seem acceptable, not for directly political means, but for the faith.

Now within a modern democracy a Christian could act to uphold the right, as per Romans 13, as this is a biblical role for government.

So for instance I would argue that William Wilberforce's struggle against slavery would be in line with his Christianity.

As for the latter part of the statement, I agree, division is something that weakens us as a whole, and could at times be intentionally sown.

PeachyKeane said:

Obviously, it would be immoral and awful when a left-winger practices violence as politics. But it is fine to practice violence against liberals because they are immoral and awful.

I'm sorry that you're wrong.

Click to expand...

I of course cannot keep you from sarcasm, but just so that folks know this is not your position, unless it changed in the last few minutes, I will note it here. It could save time in the long run when people start asking.

timothyu said:

Of course but not to partake in them. Not to rebel. And it wasn't man's religion Christianity that was meant to go. It was Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom, an alternate to the politics of man.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you took exception to Christianity as only a man-made religion. The term goes back to Scripture:

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

And I referenced submission to authorities and the gospel being the mission of the church in my first reply.

tall73 said:

I have to think over the first part for a bit longer. Christianity was meant to go to all nations, appealing to people in all political systems. Of course, as Paul and Peter wrote they encouraged submission to the authorities, even granted that the emperor at the time was Nero.

The gospel, not political change, was the mission of the church.

However, non-violent resistance, usually through suffering, did seem acceptable, not for directly political means, but for the faith.

Now within a modern democracy a Christian could act to uphold the right, as per Romans 13, as this is a biblical role for government.

So for instance I would argue that William Wilberforce's struggle against slavery would be in line with his Christianity.

As for the latter part of the statement, I agree, division is something that weakens us as a whole, and could at times be intentionally sown.

Click to expand...

If your primary contention was simply that Christians have no role in politics, alright. My reply was meant to have you consider the aspect of Christians having a positive impact on society in which they are permitted to play a role.

But so that we do not get too far off track, if you want to start a thread that contends Christians have no role in politics, feel free. This thread is about the role of violence in politics.

PeachyKeane said:

And Ahmari would say that it's thinking like that that will lead to Christianity being completely defeated and squashed out by the secular left. We are in a post-Christian America, and steps must be taken to restore God to a Godless nation.

Click to expand...

Never heard of him. But ok. Do you plan on expressing your own views, in addition to those of Ahmari?

In the meantime I am looking up some info on him.

Sparagmos said:

I don’t think anyone here will say “yes,”

Click to expand...

I suppose we will see.

but we enforce our morality and political agendas with violence here and all over the world.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I have started a number of threads on our war efforts. However, let's limit this to the type of street violence within our country that this thread is about.

There is also slow violence (working people to the point of injury) and emotional violence (Being teased, bullied, and told you are worthless) that we allow. Anyone who has explored true pacifism has gone down that rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And the work injury issue is a personal one as a family member of mine experienced this.

However, this thread is not about pacifism in general, but about the sort of street violence we have been seeing.

PeachyKeane said:

And Ahmari would say

Click to expand...

Is this a fair representation of his views generally?

Against David French-ism | Sohrab Ahmari

PeachyKeane said:

That's the first strike, yes. But it's the more extreme elements who expound on the ideas that are worth looking at.

Click to expand...

I see, thank you for the tips on where to start.