Now: Is revolution a sin? To get down to a good example, was the American revolutionary war one big sin?
I would like to say that revolution for certain reasons is acceptible. If you religious freedoms are being oppressed or being denied then the faithful should be able to, but not for taxes and laws that affect them economically, unless it provents healthy life. I would say that our revolution was wrong, we turned on our leaders because of some taxes and laws that only a minority really felt. As for it being a sin I wouldn’t say that it was, we had some decent oppresive behavior to challenge.
I agree (from personal conviction). But how can one reconcile this with Romans 13:1-7 ? I feel it’s problematic.
Armed *resistance *to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
Firstly, less than half of the colonists even supported revolution, like 46%, it was not a popular ideal. Most were willing to take the misconducts as the subjects are suppose to. It did come down to the wealthiest men in the world getting their businesses interupted by the king and his laws. Most people did not want independence nor were there a large dissention among the people, it came down to some very rich and motvating speakers that caused the whole thing. If the founding fathers hadn’t declared independence then the king would never had tried to quiet the revolt and no war or independence would have come for a while yet. I also learned that it actually wasn’t so much the king’s fault, but the British parliament, they ran most functions and the king was more a state head, they actually caused most laws to get passed and ignored the please of the colonies.
A revolution is the act of independence. The revoluionary war was the war for independence. A revolution means to change power or laws, independence means leaving the power holder or getting away from the laws.
We still changed our governing power over to the white landowning males in America, which before we had no representation in parliament at all. The realm of government was changed, now there was a representing group and a selected leader for the colonists. The white and wealthy…etc, may still hold the power, but that is a capitalist society, different government system took place from the representative monarchy. Things were still changed in a great sence and the social life of the people and politally there was a revolution.
Where do you get your facts from?
I get my sources from a U.S. History course text book.
Because rights come from God, not from the king. The king is there to secure rights, not issue them. Read the Declaration of Independence. Also England was a monarchy, not an autocracy, therefore the king did not have all the political power. I’m not sure but there may have been a House of Commons at the time. At any rate, the colonists were being treated like dogs, less than a subject. Prior to the declaration being made, the colonists wanted only to be treated with the same rights and dignity as the rest of the subjects in England.
If this were entirely true it would only prove the king was remiss in his duties. But Benjamin Franklin was in England, pleading with crown and parliament to iron things out.
This is about like saying the only reason for the civil rights movement was because Martin Luther King was such a slick talker! And all the police beatings and water cannons were simply the Nat’l Guard trying to restore peace. The rest of the poor black folks were sort of caught in the middle.
Wow, what is the title of your history textbook? This is bunk. The issue of slavery very nearly foiled the revolution precisely because many of the writers and orators could see contradiction. Slavery was tolerated only for the sake of uniting the colonies. I think the Founding Fathers had faith that later generations would have to continue working out our liberty. I mean what kind of supernatural gods do we think they were? Are you seriously so ingrateful that you think the issues of women voters, slavery, civil rights, as well as a war for independence should have been handled by these men?
An interesting corollary . . .
Actually, this is a poor example. John Adams (yes, THAT John Adams) defended the captain of the British troops in a court of law – and the man was acquitted, as were most of the troops who were involved. “Massacre” was then, like now, a loaded term, which didn’t truly apply. The incident seems to have been started by the colonists – and the total number of dead was, I believe, 8 persons.
Quite true, with regard to Lexington and Concord.
The problem is, is that the majority of the colonists 1) were not being treated unjustly, and 2) didn’t want to go to war. The “hotbeds of revolt” as it were, were New England and Virginia, and some (like Franklin) in Pennsylvania. The southern states truly had to be persuaded to go to war. From a religious standpoint, the Methodists in the colonies were against the war, as were many of the Anglican laity, and most of the Anglican clergy.
) I’m merely trying to suggest that the issues were not nearly as “cut and dried” as modern history books would suggest.I ask what God given right did the British government not give to the colonists? Plus the ideas in the Declaration of Independence were based on philosophy and fundalmentalism, not Christian beliefs. Yes England had a parliament and the King, but the king still had power that he could and did over power them. Actually in England they were just as bad if not worse on the Britise Isles, while we were getting taxes and stamp act and everything, British subjects were receiving 50% taxes and under many of the same acts.
