Can somebody tell this schmuck about the Deacons for Defense and Justice?
Pledge of Nonviolence
April 23, 2010 - 5:16 ET
Below is the Pledge of Nonviolence that Martin Luther King, Jr. asked those who believed in his message to abide by as well as his core principles of nonviolence.
I am going to ask you to make the same commitment to nonviolence and give you the opportunity to make that pledge public by having you ‘sign’ these documents below.
-glenn
Pledge of Nonviolence
1. As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus
2. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
3. Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4. Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5. Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6. Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. Perform regular service for others and the world.
8. Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
9. Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.
The Five Principles of Nonviolence
1. Non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards. It does resist. The nonviolent resister is just as strongly opposed to the evil against which he protests, as is the person who uses violence. His method is passive or nonaggressive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, but his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken. This method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually; it is nonaggressive physically but dynamically aggressive spiritually.
2. Nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation but he realizes that noncooperation is not the ends itself; it is merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.
3. The attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is a struggle between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
4. Nonviolent resistance avoids not only external physical violence, but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.
5. Nonviolence is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is the deep faith in the future that allows a nonviolent resister to accept suffering without retaliation. The nonviolent resister knows that in his struggle for justice, he has a cosmic companionship.
71 comments:
I Will NOT be sigeing THAT Pledge-
Dennis
III
You need to send him this:
"Had the Japanese got as far as India. Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass." -- Mike Vanderboegh.
What a fitting picture.
The Washington Memorial behind the White House.
It looks like the Red Shed is either giving us The Finger, or has a massive hard-on.
We report, you decide.
More on this, when I have some time and scriptural references.
B Woodman
III-per
What a fitting picture.
The Washington Memorial behind the White House.
It looks like the Red Shed is either giving us The Finger, or has a massive hard-on.
We report, you decide.
More on this, when I have some time and scriptural references.
B Woodman
III-per
Whatever Beck's failings are, he has done some good by exposing the socialist agenda being forced on us, and he did give favorable mention to the RTC rally. Maybe he just doesn't know?
I had never heard of the Deacons, until Mike mentioned them almost a year ago. It certainly wasn't part of my K-12 school curriculum. We can inform him and see if he adjusts his message in light of new information.
I've been pinging his mailbox about the matter.
Sent him the link to your Deacons post this morning.
Ebd10, I already sent him a link to Mike's post about Gandhi. The one where he exposes that the Japanese played bayonet catch with infants.
No response.
I've e-mail GB that I cannot sign his pledge because I have a point at which I'll stand, rack the shotgun and say "get off my land". An attitude Glenn was praising just a few weeks before running with this pledge.
I still watch and listen because he has good intel and sometimes makes me laugh but know he's not a reliable ally to our cause.
Sorry Glenn, no can do.
The Asshats in the ivory towers have no problem using force.
Neither will I.
High percentage of women, female and shemale signed I see.
Wayne B
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was no stranger to the idea of self-defense. According to Annelieke Dirks, “Even Martin Luther King Jr.—the icon of nonviolence—employed armed bodyguards and had guns in his house during the early stages of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956. Glenn Smiley, an organizer of the strictly nonviolent and pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), observed during a house visit that the police did not allow King a weapon permit, but that ‘the place is an arsenal.’”[3] Efforts from those like Smiley convinced Dr. King that any sort of weapons or “self-defense” could not be associated with someone like him in the position that he held. Dr. King agreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
I pledge to never initiate a violent encounter.
I pledge to become so adept in the application of violence so that if I am ever forced to employ violence, I will be in a position to save myself and those with me, as well as those who've initiated the violence from as much suffering as possible.
I pledge to only employ the violence necessary to nullify the aggressor's attack on my, my home, my State or my Constitution -- as the aggressor ceases, so will I.
I pledge to employ the principle of 'destruction by degree', meaning to only destroy that which is either attacking or threatening my life.
I pledge to employ Honor when forced to resort to violence in the defense of my home, my State, my country, and my Constitution.
So help me, God.
As for the rest of that pacifist crap, well....it belongs in the compost heap.
Glenn doesn't get invited to the "nice" parties anymore since us "violent" tea party people shook up the pinky-in-the-air crowd.
I think this is his way to get back "in".
besides it's easy to preach nonviolence when you have a bodyguard.
so far in the 912 groups I'm in, there are some people signing it (mostly women and "glenn is always right" types) but it looks like the majority are saying "no way!"
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
Glen, you are in error.
I'll take the contrarian position here and say that Glenn is throwing the issue of non-violence right back at the collectivists.
Doing stuff like this drives them absolutely nuts.
As far as I'm concerned, I'll be non-violent until they fire the first shot.
With all that said...Mike, call Glenn at his radio show. Have a conversation with him about this!
I see a number of parallels to the Civil Rights Movement.
During that time, a substantial majority took the pledge of non-violence, while a small minority protected them. This led to success
Right now, we have a substantial majority pledging non-violence while a small minority will protect them as well. Prayerfully, this will also lead to success.
I learned all I needed to know about Glenn Beck when I saw the video of a guest on his show passing out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-_Tp2cZzY
I judge a man by how he is able to deal with any number of situations...IMHO, he was much more of a showman (i.e., the show must go on) than a man. GB is a shill and a douche-nozzle like his good buddy Shill O'Reilly.
I believe that's there's room for the 3pers and Glenn Beck's approach. We're fighting for the same things, just different approaches. Glenn is a wealth of information but, methinks that the non-violent pledge is in response to some of the "stuff" that's come out recently like Bill Jeff Klinton's rant.
He's not against us, just a different part of the army. A REMF
jeepster
I signed the pledge as "Up Yours" from Philadelphia, PA.
I used to think Glenn Beck was a true patriot. However, A true patriot would never sign such a pledge or ask others to do so. Nobody wants to be violent. We want our Constitutional Republic back in the most peaceful means possible. I will never sign a pledge for which there is no possible way to know if I can stay true to the pledge. My only pledge is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Due to the fact that Fox and Glenn will never say a word about muslims-ever since they were purchased by Saudis-I take everything Glenn says with reserve. He has good information about some things, but NO information about other things (birth certificate, grades, passport, etc). He is a self promoting showman, just like OReilly and Geraldo.
GB has done a fairly good job of informing the public - at least those who don't follow the blogosphere - about the Marxist agenda being pushed by Zero, Nutpolitano, Gates, et all, but no pledges for me other than this:
Use force of any kind against me, my family, my property, or my friends and loved ones, and I will respond in kind. I say this as a retired police officer. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. The oaths I took to defend the Constitution of this country are NON-NEGOTIABLE AND HAVE NO EXPIRATION DATE.
Thanks for the link typeay.
Would anyone here be able to point me in the right direction regarding a Christian/Biblical understanding of when to use force (if ever) when dealing with politics as opposed to an armed thug?
I understand and agree with the idea that we can and should use deadly force when we are directly threatened by someone, but I am very murky in my understanding about when lethal force is justified (if ever) when confronted only by passive problems such as political issues like 2nd amendment revokation, slavery, abortionists, etc.
I would appreciate it if a serious Christian could help me through some of this stuff.
Even a link to good reading material about it would be helpful. I have been looking for a long time to deepen my understanding on that stuff, but am having trouble finding good resources and good sounding boards.
Nanders
SteveK: Good point.
MLK had little choice in trying to keep those who were legitimately discriminated against from attempting violence: Much as the British kept the Indians disarmed (and the Indian government continues to do), the disparity of forces was such in the south that mass slaughter would have occurred.
We all agree that nonviolence is the first choice. It's just whether or not it is the last choice that we disagree on. GB obviously only has the will for the former. Or he's doing the passive thing in order to draw the ire of the violent left (which I doubt).
Really, if YOU say that you won't fight for your beliefs and your freedom, you're essentially telling the other side exactly what to do to be able to totally dominate you (in other words, they know they can get whatever they want with violence - why would they negotiate at that point?). Weakness encourages assault.
Also, I was under the impression that MLK and Gandhi were both dead. From that fact, what could one possibly ascertain about the effectiveness of their pledges of nonviolence in keeping them from harm? Sure, their movements went on after their demise, but I would like to humbly suggest that it didn't help them out very much at a personal level.
Many roads lead to DC.
Personally, I think that Beck is an emo whiner who is scared silly at what is happening, and doesn't want to be held responsible. That's fine. I wish he'd realize that INITIATION of force is the issue, but if he ever did, it would be a no-return turn away from the Republicans. But if we're all stoning the state, you can't tell which rock hits the head, and the more rocks in the air, the harder it is to duck. If nonviolence brings a bunch of liberals on-board, that's fine. None of us know what God's plan is, so chill and let everyone do their own work.
Glenn has been accused of seditious activity and fomenting violence and rebellion. He's just covering his butt so he won't be charged by the DOJ lefties and/or kicked off the air.
I'm going to gnore it and hope he can keep exposing the traitors in government.
Many good points, though they can take Martin Luther King and stuff him.
I'm not taking any pledges and I have NO interest in attempting reasoned
discourse with evil people. Waste of everyone's time, and it could get
you killed.
Violent resistance is always a last resort, but it IS a legitimate option and I will never be ashamed of using it.
Loving God and loving my neighbor does not require me to be a doormat. And every day I can live within my principles and not do any harm is a victory for me.
The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness." - R.A. Heinlein
Hence, I will not be taking that pledge.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry
Glenn Beck is a sniveling pussy who'd let anyone run him over. He let the PTB coerce him into doing a 180 on the FEMA camps that just one hour before he "debunked" them, he stated that he could not. I will not initiate violence, but I'll damn sure retaliate!
HA! verification word is "trater". Yep, that's Beck....
GB is a Judas Goat leading the Tea Party to the slaughter.
Non-violence? Our government is completely and irretrievably built of violence, violence against other nations, violence against our own free citizenry.
Not on my watch.
joe
ScottJ said:
"I still watch and listen (G.Beck) because he has good intel and sometimes makes me laugh but know he's not a reliable ally to our cause."
Gee....it sounds like ScottJ could be making the same comment in reference to Oath Keepers and Stewart Rhodes and OK's Board of Directors. Let's all sit and have a round of Kumbaya.
Yeah, you're right....I have NO use for Oath Keepers in any way, shape or form. And those of you who make excuses for them are little better than they are. Rhodes and OK BoD....deceivers and hypocrites all.
If Beck is really committed to non-violent action, then let's see some non-violent action. How about some peaceful non participation? Lets see him promote not paying taxes, not obeying regulations, not paying fees or fines, no participation in health care, carbon taxes, government schools, etc.etc.etc... I mean, is Glenn Beck committed to non-violence, or is he simply committed to not making himself look too radical for his audience?
I didn't sign it-but it looks like "Vidkun Quisling, Caspar Milquetoast and Benedict Arnold" did-guess we are known by the company we keep...
I will always stick to my theory that he works for the "OTHER" side. This only verifies it more to me and family members. I never trusted him and never will. PHONY!
Doc Enigma nailed it!!!
MamaLiberty is right on when she says"not interested in attempting reasoned discourse with evil people".
The issue is one of INITIATION OF FORCE. We maintain the moral high ground when we refuse to initiate but we are cowards when we refuse to engage when confronted by evil.
KPN3%
Mayberry, et al...
Screw all of you who can't see past your own machismo to acknowledge the validity of non-violent resistance.
Your arrogance is astounding.
signed as ...
45970. Torries Pledged the Same Thing, Lexington, MA
I signed it.
"Threeper
Everywhere, USA"
Yeehah
Riverside
Oh HELL NO!
Oh HELL No
My "arrogance" will keep me alive and Free. I will not submit to tyranny, and I will not be taken alive. If you want to die by the hand of the jack booted thugs, be my guest. I might die, but I won't die alone....
@ Gaige: Non-violent resistant works when dealing with fundamentally decent people. When you aren't, when you're dealing with animals, then it's simply suicidal.
Gaige,
Your ignorance is dangerous.
Should the Minute Men at Lexington and Concord have discussed the validity of non-violent resistance?
Most here are saying violence should be met with violence, not many are proposing intitating the violence.
However, the Oath to Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, has an inherent authority to use violence. The passage of the Declaration of Independence which speaks of the first enumerated Right of the People supports this.
It can't be achieved by simply saying "Hey, now cut that out! I mean it!" Wagging your finger, crying "foul" and sitting down in front of some politicians office or interrupting a speech do nothing.
Those things should be done first, many agree, I'm sure. Even more direct action, such as bricks through a window or waving your guns in the tyrants faces are all but a starting point.
It's not Machismo.
It's courage.
You can sit down if you want.
I'll stand up!
III
Yeah, I've said for a while that GB is a douchebag on his best days.
A traitor, his only interest is self promotion. He seeks to win the approval of the MSM and he nearly swooned over his lunch man-date with Clooney, what a wonnnderful guy he was, etc.
His 'pledge' is easy to make, since the gutless bastard would roll over and piss on his belly if approached by anyone with a menacing look. He and O'Reilly are but puppets for the left, putting on a show to amuse and distract the gullible.
Oh - and Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and their ilk would indeed pat him on the head for each idiot he got to sign the 'pledge'.... that would mean one more easy target or quisling, ready to drop trou and grab his ankles when any Imperial Leader told him to do so.
GB? FO !
j3
There comes a time in life when a man has to make a stand. GB is in a position to rally many people to the cause but lacks the courage to do so. Perhaps its the FOX censors, perhaps its his own weakness. If he truly believed in the Constitution and Liberty, the best thing he could do would be to be more aggressive, assertive and defiant in the faces of FOX, censors, and the administration. The Sons of Liberty never showed cowardice like this pledge and neither should any of us.
Gaige,
The validity of non-violent resistance only works as far as your opponent's willingness to remain non-violent. Ghandi's pacifism only worked because the British were (fundamentally) moral people who did not resort to violence as a matter of normal policy. Had he been up against the Japanese, Hitler, Stalin or any other totalitarian his theories of '"passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass."' The fact that the British were heavily outnumbered in India, coupled with the fact that there were Indians who were willing to use violence is what allowed Ghandi's passive resistance to work. The same can be applied to Martin Luther King. He was supported by armed individuals who kept the Klan at bay and allowed his peaceful protests to succeed. It is ironic that the wilingness of armed indviduals who were ready to do violence allowed the pacifists to procceed with their demonstrations without the bloodshed that would undoubtedly have occurred.
Nanders,
Start with "The 5000 Year Leap" for a complete listing of inalienable rights. The thinkers and philosophers whose ideas influenced the Founders are a good place to start. "On Combat" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has good material. That should give you a start.
KG
III
I keep hearing about this wanker doing such good things such as waking people up, I call BULLSH*T. He is a spoiler and a confidence man no more NO less and has been for some time now.
Chris
III
To Anon 6:37; You are very correct about the India/Britian problem. Bertrand Russell (even a broken clock is right twice a day) said that Ghandi will be successful only because "he is appealing to the conscious of a Christianized people". We don't get that luxury...
KG, Thanks for those references. I will order those books. If any other Christian can help me shed light on this, please help.
Thanks,
Nanders
Blogger Gaige said...
Mayberry, et al...
Screw all of you who can't see past your own machismo to acknowledge the validity of non-violent resistance.
Your arrogance is astounding.
April 26, 2010 3:02 PM
YOU GET TO TAKE POINT and Go First. Non violent resistance is what we ARE doing to keep violence out of the equation, but when you sign up for this petition shit....whatever you want to do is up to you and all of us individually but understand when you convince your foe you are a sheep and he masses to over run your position you may not be able to stand and hold the field even if you were bluffing to begin with. Their forces are massed and attacking. Have fun all you Ghandi's out there. You know Ghandi didn't wake up one morning and decide to have a peaceful non violent march and by BEER Thirty it was all good, MANY THOUSANDS of them folks DIED--DEAD....Kids and all. Cannon Fodder up front. If non violence is your thing.........AT LEAST Don't tellem' it is, keep them guessing. PEACE.
Chris
III
For the proponents of forswearing force, I have one word:
Tibet
When the Dalai Lama and other passivists win there, I'll listen.
I'll still say "feh", but I will listen.
By any means necessary....
Concerned American
Tibet! Crap! How could we have forgotten the Dali Lama's track record.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Non-violence, indeed!
Chris, amen brother. I got an affinity for being not dead. I will shoot jackboots, criminals, etc. who try to make me dead. If that makes me a bad guy, I don't really give a shit....
Mayberry III
And I ain't kiddin'
From the Dept. of Redundancy Dept, let the Master have the last word:
"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness." - R.A. Heinlein
There is nothing further to say about the matter. Tom Paine said the same thing but took thrice the words to do so.
IIIJon
"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure -- and in some cases I have -- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."
--Jeff Cooper
Glenn Beck is simply attempting to live up to his Mormon beliefs.
Non-violence, simply because you believe non-violence somehow justifies you, is not a valid belief.
Non-violence because you are dedicated to trusting the LORD God while you preach the Gospel is certainly very valid, and the LORD God will have it no other way. Otherwise He would have never included the following in His word:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:35-39)
And this:
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:32-40)
Moreover, He would have NEVER stood for Stephen:
When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:54-60)
Mind you, Stephen had no sword.
Nanders: RE Biblical use of Force. John Knox's boys in Scotland gave it a good thinking. Its heavy reading but very thorough & tightly reasoned, Puritan & Old Presbyterian style:
HEAD V.-Defensive Arms Vindicated.
tinyurl.com/2g7peck
HEAD VI.-Of Extraordinary Execution of Judgment by Private Men.
tinyurl.com/2aws978
Pay special attention to Head vi, as it very well may show up in the sequel to Absolved. you know the sequel that all you talented writers are gonna help Mike write. I'm thinking with all the talent around our subculture TRILOGY!
Tom B, Texas Preparedness Project
Glenn Beck is a tool, to put it nicely. A "libertarian", he is not.
You have to admire his ability to
make tons of money, though he lost his way a long time ago, due to greed. "Nancy Boy"? Yeppers.
I've withheld my comments here for a
lil' while as I considered the increasing adversarial tone of both the Patriots and the wannabe
statists. I would advise everyone not to burn any bridges that you may need to cross soon. That goes for OK and any other friends you can get, you may need them all. Know what I mean?
I consider myself a fairly sharp guy.
I've gotten out of situations that
required innovation, pure guts and even diplomacy. Luck and skill combined. I've even made money that way.
However, at this point, I can see only one resolution to the irreconcilable nature of the economic/social/political schism we now face. I really don't like it:
Prepare for battle, it is coming.
'Tis a shame. I only wanted to live
free and in peace for the rest of my years. Left the HELL alone!
I guess that is not to be. Those who want to control us are taking over, and there is only one way to stop them. Rigged "voting" is a joke.
May The Good Lord damn to Hell those who are intent on destroying that peace by their attempts to take what little freedoms I have left. They can't have them.
And may God allow me to send as many of those bastards down the road to Hell as I can when TSHTF.
If I survive, I'll see ya on the other side. I'll be the old guy with the big rifle, hot barbecue pit, and
cold beer...
(Don't mind the dawgs, they are cool. Just give them the bones.)
And the last line of the Declairation of independence reads, "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." This idiot would still be a loyal follower of the queen of England. We would not be a free country if we had followed this garbage.
I've taken all the pledges that I intend to follow. I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I took this oath over thirty years ago and it didn't expire when I retired ten years ago.
To GOD and Country, Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor
Ken Lowder
Back to the range I go again to practice and let off steam. Thamks GB, i'll be watching your back so you can rant on.
I love how you big children assume I'm advocating absolute pacifism.
I'm saying that non-violent resistance, the tactics of Ghandi and MLK, have their place. Which is right now. We should all be working for nonviolent resolutions to these issues of constitutional (and lack thereof) government.
Many of you claim you don't want violence, but when a prominent person of Glenn Beck's visibility makes a commitment to it, you declare him a traitor. Defame his motives, his integrity, his character.
So don't be surprised and act all scandalized when I think it's fueled by machismo as opposed to rational thought.
I'm stockpiling ammunition and looking for training. This is preparation against the day that nonviolence may cease to be an option. But every single one of you that doesn't work for nonviolence up to the very last minute is a murdering bastard with blood on their hands.
April 27, 2010 12:34 AM
Blogger Gaige said...
I love how you big children assume I'm advocating absolute pacifism.
Gaige,
The topic is "Glen Beck's Nonviolence Pledge." Nonviolence IS PACIFISM, Sir. Folks this is what happens over time. You get a false church teaching "render unto to Caesar what is due Caesar" or "live by the sword and you shall die by the sword" out of context theology for 100 years. EVERYBODY IS NON VIOLENT UNTIL YOU PERFORM A VIOLENT ACTION! If the Pledge was titled "Glen Beck's NO Fort Sumpter Pledge" I would indeed sign.
Chris
III
GB has his ass on the right side of the fence, although his trousers appear to be hooked on the barb wire. His TV following is very large and most of his message is good. He treads *lightly* on the initiation of force message, but if he did not, would he still be on TV? Methinks...not.
When GB's followers start getting their heads knocked, many will recognize that the time to be passive has passed. Until that time, prepare.
Blogger Gaige = TROLL!!
Bob
III
Beck is being true to his Mormon beliefs? I doubt it. If you look at American history, specifially the Mormon experience in Illinois and Missouri, you will see that this group of people had to resort to armed force just to survive the mobs of anti-Mormons. Read UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN by Krakauer.
Nanders,
One key piece of literature that motivated the overthrow of tyrants in another day, is 'Vindicie Contra Tyrannos'
This (largely forgotten) essay was cited again & again by our own Founding Fathers in their writings.
Found here:
http://tinyurl.com/vindiciaecontratyrannos
Some background:
Vindiciae contra tyrannos (meaning: "Defences [of liberty] against tyrants"[1]) was an influential Huguenot tract published in Basel in 1579.
The work addresses questions concerning the response of the people to their king.
It asks & answers key questions:
1) Are people are bound to obey and/or are able to resist their king when he breaks the divine law ?
2) Whether the people can resist a king on the grounds that he is destroying the commonwealth ?
The answer to each of these questions is an affirmative and the work is interesting for the grounds that it gives for popular resistance.
The work merges the theological view of covenant with the legal understanding of contract to show why resistance can be justified in the eyes of the law.
The final question considers:
3) Whether foreign princes can legally support a popular rising against a king on the conditions set out in the prior questions.
Its author remains uncertain, since it was written under the pseudonym of "Stephen Junius Brutus".
This would echo John Locke's stand that a breaking of higher law by the 'king' absolves the people of any further allegiance.
("Absolved" keeps coming up...)
And of course, the Founding Fathers, per the Declaration of Independence, noted, the wicked King of England, had become "....unfit to be the ruler a a free people....".
I find many Christian Patriots today are probably feeling a bit isolated & are finding precious little support in their churches - most being compromised by Statism & apathy & dominated by 'group think'.
This essay may help convince them, but more importantly, bolster our faith, which will surely be tested in the days ahead.
Pass it along....Godspeed....
Texas Minuteman
Sorry, GB, I have a much better oath I swore a long time ago:
"I swear, by my life and my love of It, to fight against all forms of tyranny."
There's more, but anyone who really cares can find it. Or just look up the Zero Aggression Principle.
A couple of folks mentioned the Dalai Lama. As it happens, he has spoken directly on the subject:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Just a reminder...Gandhi was no fool.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
------------ Mohandas Gandhi
"Gaige said...
Mayberry, et al...
Screw all of you who can't see past your own machismo to acknowledge the validity of non-violent resistance.
Your arrogance is astounding.
April 26, 2010 3:02 PM "
Hey Gauge....or should I say "Mahatma Ghandi" .... perhaps you should tell the descendants (if any)of the Jews persecuted, tortured, and slaughtered by the NAZIS in Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, the Warsaw Ghetto and locations across Europe and Soviet Russia the "value" of passive resistance.
Although our arrogance may be astounding to you, your leftist ignorance is not surprising in the least.
Now why don't you move on to the Huffington Post, where anonymous comments from the likes of you are cheered and glorified.
Beck in my opinon still has good content on some of his shows. A man in Becks position would be held for inciting violence. And as a better speaker than a fighter im sure he was ever so slightly nudged to stop turning his listeners into gun clinging militia folk.
So mabey he took the vaginal way out but the man has exposed alot of people to the playbook of the progressive.
Personaly I will stand up and only return violence when the situation calls for it. I do not wish to act out in violence to anyone but that choice may not be mine to make.
But as for Beck give him a little break he is after all named in the same report as Mike V. And anyone the SPLC hates we should adore.
Tiger striped III
One more thing to add....
while the non violent are sitting non violently being a giant target, thier would be killers may have their backs turned to the ones willing to react with violence. So lets support this non violent pledge, when they get slaughtered not only will we have more rally to our side, but they will have less ammo.
Tiger striped III
I think GB has some good message, my wife even likes his message, sometimes we can't stand to hear him preach the message.
Have any of you young children? Have any of you spared the rod with your kids? Have any of you tried to reason with a screaming child throwing a fit and seen it work? Have you ever seen it work with other kids? No, you haven't.
The same can be said of passive resistance when it is confronted by violence; it simply doesn't work.
The only thing that violence understands is violence. To do otherwise is to try to reason with an angry dog or screaming kid throwing a tantrum. You must be willing to apply force proportionately to the threat and without passion.
I once asked a pacifist friend of mine later in life what would he do if someone what threatening to kill his mother and only deadly force would have stopped the attack. He actually refused to answer the question and after trying to understand his words, I realized that we are a nation hamstrung if people of that ilk come to power. Then it hit me that people like that are already in power and if it doesn't change, the only outcome is going to be unthinkable. The Civil War was brother against brother mostly in States that bordered the Mason Dixon line. A future Civil War based on freedom or socialism with truly be brother against brother in many, many households. My aunt is an Obama zombie and it would break my heart to shoot her if she lead a group of community organizers to my home to confiscate my known weapons. But I would do it even though my family would likely die on the porch.
Post a Comment