Posted on 04/24/2011 4:28:09 AM PDT by GonzoII
[1]The revolutions in North Africa this year call to mind the old controversy about revolution, and whether citizens can rightly rebel against their long established government. Insofar as the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi has escalated all the way to civil war, Libya (as distinguished from Egypt and Tunisia) offers a sort of laboratory test on the issue of whether a citizen can rightly take up arms against a corrupt regime.
A Medieval Islamic proverb takes submissiveness on the part of oppressed citizens to its logical extreme: “Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife.” Rejecting this line, however, is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading Egyptian Islamic theologian who spoke to a vast crowd of activists on February 18th, 2011 in Cairo’s Tahrir square. His sermon included an ecumenical embrace of Coptic Christians.
It might be, therefore, that Christian moral teaching on the subject of revolution may begin to receive a more favorable reception in countries with Muslim majorities. In any event, Catholic doctrine is universal. And in the case of the catechetical preconditions for armed insurrection, they comport with common sense applicable to people of every tradition.
Thus, it is distressing to read pro-statist construal of the Christian religion. In his, Which Jesus: Choosing Between Love and Power (2002), Protestant writer, Tony Campolo, sees Roman 13 as condemning all revolutionaries who dare to take up arms. Campolo equates such rebels with Barabbas. Perhaps a few Catholics, like Brian Casey, might join with Campolo in order to de-canonize St. Joan of Arc.
This approach reminds me of Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller and his German Christian Movement, 1933-37. These German citizens became Nazi accomplices by maintaining that St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chapter 13, mandated submission to the Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. Their theology stood in stark contrast to
(Excerpt) Read more at catholiclane.com ...
The commentary is taken from the view of the Libyans situation and their own actions, our intervention would be cause for another article.
“...on the issue of whether a citizen can rightly take up arms against a corrupt regime.”
I didn’t know it WAS an issue. Imagine that! It’s a question now!
I'm not sure I follow, it seems to be a question that is answered in the affirmative in the post.
WOW—another Muzzie quote that’s disgusting.
I kinda like “millions for defense—not one cent for tribute” meself!
“I’m not sure I follow, it seems to be a question that is answered in the affirmative in the post.”
I wrote from the perspective that the point of a question is sometimes NOT the answer but the asking itself. The only authority for revolution that I know of is a gun and a man behind it willing to accept the consequences. Asking such a question as in the original post implies some kind of authority for supporting the negitive.
Question: Should 1+1 equal 2 or not?
I wrote from the perspective that the point of a question is sometimes NOT the answer but the asking itself. The only authority for revolution that I know of is a gun and a man behind it willing to accept the consequences. Asking such a question as in the original post implies some kind of authority for supporting the negative.
Question: Should 1+1 equal 2 or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.