A
Argh
Guest
Hi there folks,
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a specific encyclical or document pertaining to revolution and the religious validity thereof.
War, as I understand it, is justified by the necessity for self-defense and preservation. The classic example, WWII was a just conflict because the United States was attacked by the Empire of Japan. For all those living in the British Commonwealth (or former, I’m not entirely sure how that works), WWII was justified because Nazi Germany invaded Poland, which Great Britain had pledged to defend.
Now, an unjust conflict would be that of aggression, of course. a sticky subject on this forum, I’m sure, is the validity of the current Iraq War. I seem to remember Pope JPII saying that it was not a just conflict because Iraq, correctly as it turned out, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. I know, I know, half the forum is going to flame me now, I know.
Now, on to the subject of a revolution. Of the many revolutions or “restoration” as in the case of the Meiji “revolution” in Japan, very few really seem to be out of self-defense or preservation.
Perhaps most relevant to forum members here, who I think are mostly Americans, is the American Revolution. Could the American Revolution, as much as I would dislike to doubt, actually be considered a “just” revolution? If you think about it, the American colonies were not in threat for their very existences, rather than their autonomy, which had been granted to them more out of a lack of a desire and means to directly govern them than anything else.
This notion doesn’t even seem to even hold up very well even in American history. That a people can succeed from a larger entity in order to form a more perfect union between the citizenry and government was renounced with the United State’s (Union) victory over the Confederate Stats of America (da South).
In other parts of the world, the another revolution I understand well is the Chinese Revolution, a/k/a the Communist Chinese Revolution. At the turn of the century, China, under the Manchu Qing dynasty, was in rather sorry state. Warlords controlled most of China by de fault and the vast majority of Chinese lived in abject poverty under a very much corrupt and broken government.
It would seem to me, then, that the CCP actually has a better claim to legitimacy than the US in this regard. Imperial China, some would say by choice, was unable to counter European and Japanese aggression while simultaneously providing for the welfare of its subjects. Later, the Republic of China, first under Dr. Sun Yatsen and then the would-be Emperor Yuan Shikai could do little better for mostly a lack of money and other basic means.
However, the CCP, as in all revolutions, achieved their ends by force. To adequately provide food for the peasants, they seized land, grain, and animals from wealthier peasants/landlords and redistributed it to others, for example. Those that stood in their way, they either forced into submission or killed, much like any other revolution. This was all before 1949 btw, before the founding of the PRC.
So, in the end, what makes a revolution just? The American Revolution doesn’t seem to fit the criteria whereas the Chinese Revolution does more so…kinda. Either way, force is used, otherwise it wouldn’t be considered a “revolution” would it?
thanks! (name removed by moderator)ut please!
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a specific encyclical or document pertaining to revolution and the religious validity thereof.
War, as I understand it, is justified by the necessity for self-defense and preservation. The classic example, WWII was a just conflict because the United States was attacked by the Empire of Japan. For all those living in the British Commonwealth (or former, I’m not entirely sure how that works), WWII was justified because Nazi Germany invaded Poland, which Great Britain had pledged to defend.
Now, an unjust conflict would be that of aggression, of course. a sticky subject on this forum, I’m sure, is the validity of the current Iraq War. I seem to remember Pope JPII saying that it was not a just conflict because Iraq, correctly as it turned out, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. I know, I know, half the forum is going to flame me now, I know.
Now, on to the subject of a revolution. Of the many revolutions or “restoration” as in the case of the Meiji “revolution” in Japan, very few really seem to be out of self-defense or preservation.
Perhaps most relevant to forum members here, who I think are mostly Americans, is the American Revolution. Could the American Revolution, as much as I would dislike to doubt, actually be considered a “just” revolution? If you think about it, the American colonies were not in threat for their very existences, rather than their autonomy, which had been granted to them more out of a lack of a desire and means to directly govern them than anything else.
This notion doesn’t even seem to even hold up very well even in American history. That a people can succeed from a larger entity in order to form a more perfect union between the citizenry and government was renounced with the United State’s (Union) victory over the Confederate Stats of America (da South).
In other parts of the world, the another revolution I understand well is the Chinese Revolution, a/k/a the Communist Chinese Revolution. At the turn of the century, China, under the Manchu Qing dynasty, was in rather sorry state. Warlords controlled most of China by de fault and the vast majority of Chinese lived in abject poverty under a very much corrupt and broken government.
It would seem to me, then, that the CCP actually has a better claim to legitimacy than the US in this regard. Imperial China, some would say by choice, was unable to counter European and Japanese aggression while simultaneously providing for the welfare of its subjects. Later, the Republic of China, first under Dr. Sun Yatsen and then the would-be Emperor Yuan Shikai could do little better for mostly a lack of money and other basic means.
However, the CCP, as in all revolutions, achieved their ends by force. To adequately provide food for the peasants, they seized land, grain, and animals from wealthier peasants/landlords and redistributed it to others, for example. Those that stood in their way, they either forced into submission or killed, much like any other revolution. This was all before 1949 btw, before the founding of the PRC.
So, in the end, what makes a revolution just? The American Revolution doesn’t seem to fit the criteria whereas the Chinese Revolution does more so…kinda. Either way, force is used, otherwise it wouldn’t be considered a “revolution” would it?
thanks! (name removed by moderator)ut please!