Can revolution (like the American rev. war) be justified (if) Romans 13?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Filius_Prodigus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Verse 3 says:For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

A government that holds terror for those who do right is not legitimate. That government can be abolished by the governed.
 
There is also the question of weither the English\British government was actually a legitmate government

Pope Pius V, in his Excommunication of Elizabeth I, declared that she was an usurper of the throne that correctly belonged to Mary’s husband, Phillip

The Pope removed any responsiblity of obedience from the faithful to this government.

As the throne was never restored to Phillip, it’s doubtful that the requirement of obedience was ever restored to the British Crown
Pope Pius V:
And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

…

We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.
Click to expand...
 
And the answer to the question ??? Were the colonists right in starting a war for independance ?

Given today’s circumstances, I think we have far more to gripe about that a mere Stamp Tax or Tea Tax.

Income Tax, State, Federal and local, and Real Estate Tax are far more sinister, and far more “intolerable”.

These ideas did not come about until the early 1900’s. Granted, no one wants to have troops housed in their homes, but how often did that happen ?

It is true that protests back, then did little good and could likely get you hung for treason.

The question still is, were the offenses from the King enough to start a very bloody war over it ?

Personally, I would say they were NOT. But I did not have to live in those circumstances. Maybe a few cents on stamps or tea would have been the difference between making it or breaking it, but offhand I would not think so.

IF they were like most merchants they would have merely passed on the added expense down to the ultimate consumer.

Independance sounds like a terrific idea, but losing thousands of lives in the process is a huge price to pay, especially if it may have come eventually anyway with NO bloodshed.

Revolution is not usually the best way to bring about change. It is way too messy ! Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela showed us a far more efficient way to do things.
 
40.png
wcknight:
And the answer to the question ??? Were the colonists right in starting a war for independance ?
Click to expand...
The crown always had the option to go home and not make war. Was the king right in fighting the war?
 
40.png
Angainor:
The crown always had the option to go home and not make war. Was the king right in fighting the war?
Click to expand...
Does the president have the right to put down revolts, end strikes, or (name removed by moderator)rison trouble makers. That is the same kind of idea. The subjects of a nation were rebelling, not even 50% of the colinists though. Maybe Bush should let terrrorists just bomb us as long as they are citizens? :confused:
 
40.png
BryPGuy89:
Does the president have the right to put down revolts, end strikes, or (name removed by moderator)rison trouble makers. That is the same kind of idea. The subjects of a nation were rebelling, not even 50% of the colinists though. Maybe Bush should let terrrorists just bomb us as long as they are citizens? :confused:
Click to expand...
  1. The president does not have the right to personally imprison trouble makers. There are little things like due process and trial by jury. If there is reason to suspect a citizen is conspiring to commit terror there are due process channels to foil their plans.
  2. If by “put down revolts” you mean “stopping a group of armed thugs from storming the White House”, then yes, the president has the power to do that.
If by “put down revolts” you mean putting down a group of peoples that have, through their elected representatives, declared their independance, then no. Absolutely not.
  1. I don’t see how the president would have any authority in labor disputes.
 
40.png
Angainor:
The crown always had the option to go home and not make war. Was the king right in fighting the war?
Click to expand...
Depends on what rights you believe Kings have. For a while there, the Chruch supported the notion of the divine right of Kings, that somehow all power came from God, and as such Kings had power given to them by God.

Of course, it was not a very good idea, and I do not agree with it.

I don’t remember if King George was a true tyrant or just painted as such by the colonists. Some of the British kings were truely nasty individuals, but some were pretty good rulers as well.

IF King George was a just and fair ruler, then I think the colonists were wrong in advocating rebellion. I’m not sure how anyone would judge that objectively.

A governing body whether it is a king or a parliment or a legislature should have the right to tax it’s citizens in order to pay for public services, and it should have the right to draft citizens (referably in a fair and equitable manner) to serve in defense of its borders.

We see the American History side of the story. How would a non-American and non-Brit see it ??
 
Catholic Social Doctrine still acknowledges the fact that the legitimate power of governance comes not from the consent of the governed - the American Heresy - but rather from God.

Hail the once and future King.
 
I ask what God given right did the British government not give to the colonists?
Click to expand...
Representation in their government for one.
The colonists started the “Boston Massacre”, we had some rioters that started trowing things at British troops and one open fire.
Click to expand...
Are you being thick headed or am I not explaining this clearly? Do you know what the Riot Act is all about? The Riot Act was a right of the people, and it was denied to the colonists. Basically it gave the people due warning that the military was about to use lethal force to stop the riot. Thereby giving the rioters one last chance to settle down.

Whether the Boston Massacre killed 6 or 600 doesn’t matter - it was an act that showed open disdain for peoples rights. This is much the same as today’s issues over the Patriot Act and Bush’s anti-terrorism policies. Even though most of us don’t feel the infringement of our rights, it’s still a reality. That’s the stupidity of man - we sit by passively fattening ourselves up for slaughter. We pay no mind to the fact that our neighbor was just hauled away for slaughter with no realization that we’re next. The writers and orators of the 1700s were just good at speaking out against this.
Given today’s circumstances, I think we have far more to gripe about that a mere Stamp Tax or Tea Tax.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between then and now. Then the colonists had *no elected representative *in their government. What’s more is the colonies were used as pawns for the betterment of England. So not only did the colonists have to put up with taxes forced down their throats, but also the colonists had to put up with other stupid laws that did not allow them to trade directly with other nations. This of course kept the cash flow through England.
The question still is, were the offenses from the King enough to start a very bloody war over it ?
Click to expand...
No, the offenses were not enough to start a war over, however they were too much to passively tolerate. So the colonists attempted to do something about it. It was from there that the situation degenerated into war. They didn’t just wake up one day and decide to go to war.
Revolution is not usually the best way to bring about change. It is way too messy ! Martin Luther, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela showed us a far more efficient way to do things.
Click to expand...
We always compare George Washington to Ghandi. Yet Ghandi didn’t have to cope with King George III. That makes all the difference in the world. How far do you think Ghandi’s tactics gone had Ghandi tried to employ them in Nazi Germany, or under Stalins Russia? Ghandi made progress mainly because the British government had a shred of a Christian conscience. That’s the beauty of Christianity - we claim to believe this stuff - so then people can always hold our feet to the fire. It’s frustrating to be held to a Christian standard, perhaps that’s why Stalin liberated himself from that.
 
40.png
wcknight:
A governing body whether it is a king or a parliment or a legislature should have the right to tax it’s citizens in order to pay for public services, and it should have the right to draft citizens (referably in a fair and equitable manner) to serve in defense of its borders.
Click to expand...
Americans, through their representatives said “thanks but no thanks” to British public services and British defense. Did the king have the right to force such things on people who did not want it?
 
40.png
tjmiller:
Catholic Social Doctrine still acknowledges the fact that the legitimate power of governance comes not from the consent of the governed - the American Heresy - but rather from God.
Click to expand...
I would say the problem you have is that we are talking about two governments. The Americans said “we are going to govern ourselves” forming the second government.

How do you discern which government God approves of? Is it always the older government? Should Americans have asked ol’ Pius VI which government was legitimate?
 
Christ has pretty much been on the side of America since day one. We simply can do no wrong in the eyes of Jesus. Atomic bombs? Had to do it. For Jesus.
 
Whatever may or may not be true about the justness of the American War of Secession, the men who led it had the most to lose if they were not successful. Let’s examine it. They were rich. They would remain rich. They chose to put it on the line by engaging in what the British government would call rebellion. If they were caught, they would lose their property and their lives. The status quo served the Founding Fathers quite well. Why then would they foment public sentiment against the Crown? The answer is that it must have been based on some sort of principle apart from their own personal wealth.
 
Very good point Kbarn. In many respects this malarky about revising history is soooo similar to anti-catholicism. You have something that has been taught and traditioned for generations, then suddenly, out of the blue, you pick up a few pathetic pieces of evidence a completely revise history!
 
**CCC2243 **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.

I think the above paragraph is objectively true, but is difficult to apply subjectively. When, for example, has “all other means of redress been exhausted?” Seems very subjective don’t you think?

Lech Walesa, for example, seemed to have more patience in his battle for reform in Poland than our founding Father’s did in their battle of independence from England. It’s easy to look back upon the decisions that leaders have made throughout history and say they should have been more patient, or tried other options, or to say it wasn’t so bad for them afterall. It’s far more difficult to actually apply CCC 2243 in person, when YOU are the one responsible for making the judgment call that will affect the souls of many.
 
[

Lech Walesa, for example, seemed to have more patience in his battle for reform in Poland than our founding Father’s did in their battle of independence from England.](http://www.bartleby.com/65/wa/Walesa-L.html)Honestly now, how much have you studied the American Revolution? Have you read the Declaration of Independence in entirety? Everyone knows the preamble, but the rest of the Declaration is a looooong litany of tyranical abuses. You can take each abuse and study it to see what the colonists were up against.
 
40.png
Dave:
CCC2243 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.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I would nix #4 straightaway. Frodo, Strider, and Gandalf spoke of “no real hope of success” but resisted Sauron nonetheless.

I have trouble even understanding why #3 is in there, so I would throw that one out too. Why would the actions of one group (the oppressors causing “worse disorders”) have any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the actions of a separate group (the oppressed). The oppressors are morally responsible for causing worse disorders, not the oppressed.

The rest are OK. The entire purpose of The Declaration of Independence was to address these issues.

As for Mr. Walesa, he foresaw a better solution that fit the situation in Poland. I don’t see how patience would have helped matters in America, at least not for their foreseeable future.
 
Angainor said:
1) The president does not have the right to personally imprison trouble makers. There are little things like due process and trial by jury. If there is reason to suspect a citizen is conspiring to commit terror there are due process channels to foil their plans.
  1. If by “put down revolts” you mean “stopping a group of armed thugs from storming the White House”, then yes, the president has the power to do that.
If by “put down revolts” you mean putting down a group of peoples that have, through their elected representatives, declared their independance, then no. Absolutely not.
  1. I don’t see how the president would have any authority in labor disputes.
Click to expand...
1)For one the president if he so felt like it does have the authority to enforce any executive laws and can have someone arrested under proper reasons. Due process is for the taking of land and trial of a jury is for finding the person’s guilt not the act of arrest. If these channels that you speak of fail lets say, like with the president spying on who ever he wants without going through the channels, what then if no one wants to stand up?

2)I don’t mean thugs in the white house, I mea the Hayse rebellion, the protests during the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement. Those where all put down by the president directly.

So lets go and have California become independent. Oh, that is right we don’t beleive that in this country that can happen. A group that electively chose independence like the southern states pre- civil war, we couldn’t do that so your theory is flawed in this country.

3)The president has authority in everything my friend, regardless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top