The Morality of Revolution

[handys003]

Actually that is an area that I am pretty light on. I wouldn't mind reading more on the polynesian side. Too concentrated on the American and Eurasian side of things.

History; Short an concise under 130 pages for quick reading:

Ancient Hawaii by Herb Kawainui Kane

Ancient Hawaiian Civilization by Edward Handy (not trying to plug a relative)

Asian Settler Colonialism by Fukikane

Concise History of the Hawaiian Islands by Phil Barnes

Captain Cook in the Pacific by Robert Craig

Next but best to read as not concise

Ka Mooolelo Hawaii The History of Hawaii by David Forbes

Guide to Newspapers of Hawai

[volgadon]

There is a very good book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It answers many of your questions about how some cultures are more advanced than others and why the Native Americans got the short end of the stick.

IMO it has nothing to do with God or a curse, but more to do with what natural resources are available in a given geography where a culture presides.

How does that exclude God or, indeed, even a curse?

[volgadon]

Britain had everything in place on the books for a severe persecution of the church, had they felt so inclined. Several years ago there was a fascinating BBC4 production called Bread of Heaven.

It was about William Williams Pantycelyn, the Welsh Methodist who wrote the hymn Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah ( I wonder why we don't sing the bread of heaven refrain) and provided background on their hardships and persecutions in the 1700s.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in church history, even though there is nothing about our church, because it depicts the background and heritage of the early Welsh converts. Plus it is a very moving program in and of itself.

[BCSpace]

Given what the scriptures say about them, I think the fact they were under a king, no matter how benign, is reason enough. In fact, I would say that not being under a constitutional government or one that is constitutional but whose constitution is not very similar to ours and whose interpretation is not reasonably similar to how ours was interpretated up to about a decade ago (not mingled with international law as a basis) is reason enough.

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesers. The history of our church, anciently and in both continents is repleat with kings, oligarchies, and other non demoncratic institutions. The form of government is not nearly so important as the right of the people to worship Him. It is one reason a temple went up in East Germany before it was raised int he west.

I never said revolution was automatic in those cases, just reason enough.

[mbh26]

So excatly what is the point of this post, as i see nothing except todays politics in it?.

Do you believe George Washington was a hero or a terrorist? How would your religious views have influenced your decision to rebel or turn the other cheek if you were in General Washington's situation?

[mbh26]

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesers.

So would you say the American revolution was not necessary for the gospel?

Reason enough? Wouldn't revolution either be right or wrong?

[mbh26]

It is referred to by Native Americans and Polynesians as "European Colonialism Mentality"

I suppose Northern Europe experienced the same thing when they were conquered by Rome. Rome brought progress and admittedly where would Britain be without Rome? A little known or admitted fact is that many were carried off as slaves from the British isles to Italy. The discrimination continued as families like my own were cheated, robbed, and basically forced out of Scotland to do the hard work of rebuilding across the Atlantic. Some served as indentured servants. But I've yet to see anyone offer me anything to make up for it, not now, nor when it happened. And yes their are families today who still hold financial benefits gained from their ancestors superior military strength and willingness to take what didn't belong to them.

[thesometimesaint]

The "morality" of war is usually determined by the winners.

[mbh26]

The history of human societies, while difficult to understand, should be no harder to study than the dinosaurs.

I can accept that the way different people advanced happened by chance just as did evolution. I believe God created the world, but it seems pretty obvious to me that evolution happened. But when we start concluding that might is right, are we not just animals?

My question is, "Where is the morality in individuals who basically eliminate religious influence in large portions of their lives?" We even have people hinting at it here in their criticism of this thread. Oh we can't talk about the morality of that here because that is politics. Oh we don't enter into the illegal immigration debate here because that is a legal question not religious. Oh we can't talk about the injustice in the WalMart empire because that is business not religion. And my favorite one is what devout Mormons consider fair in how we treat people we're dating. Well then what good is religion or any moral system outside the 3 hours you spend on Sunday morning if it is basically left in the chapel when you leave on Sunday afternoon?

Maybe religious leaders shouldn't be making decisions for the state, but IMHO separation of Church and state should not mean a separation of religious principles from business, war, love, or politics in our minds and our hearts. And yet I see big movement toward this insidious separation of Church and State.

[frankenstein]

Maybe religious leaders shouldn't be making decisions for the state, but IMHO separation of Church and state should not mean a separation of religious principles from business, war, love, or politics in our minds and our hearts. And yet I see big movement toward this insidious separation of Church and State.

your opinion hardly seems humble, short sighted yes, but not humble. Also if you are LDS then surely you follow the scriptures, including the Doctrine and Covenants, which states religion and government should not be mingled.

as for short sighted, which flavor of religion should the state not be separated from? Suppose, we believe the conspiracies and Obama is a muslim, should he then take orders/guidance from Shira (sp) law? I think not. Well, then lets go for Christianity. Some christian religions would without blinking and with support of the Bible would allow for total equality of homosexuals (not to start a gay debate but simply as point of reference). Then there are the Bible thumpers or those who see Tanner and Company God's holy warriors against the evil cult mormon - and yes, many of the "christian" religions consider the LDS religion a cult or even devil worshipers.

Then we have wiccans. We also have Satanist.

Therein is your shortsightedness, each religion has different sense of "morality" for business, politics, etc. For instance Satanist essentially believe in the reverse of the Golden Rule i.e. treat others as they have treated you (you might want to read the satanic bible sometime)

Separation of Church and State, is one of the fundementals that makes America great - sorry for the nationalism but its the truth. Can a person blindly apply their religion in their life, business, politics etc? Sure they can, and people do. I for one am thankful for the "insidious separation" because it is that very separation which allows me freedom to worship according the dictates of my own conscience; its a terrible shame you seem so bent against that freedom.

"Where is the morality in individuals who basically eliminate religious influence in large portions of their lives?"

so non-religious people are not moral or do have is that what you are suggesting?

[handys003]

I suppose Northern Europe experienced the same thing when they were conquered by Rome. Rome brought progress and admittedly where would Britain be without Rome? A little known or admitted fact is that many were carried off as slaves from the British isles to Italy. The discrimination continued as families like my own were cheated, robbed, and basically forced out of Scotland to do the hard work of rebuilding across the Atlantic. Some served as indentured servants. But I've yet to see anyone offer me anything to make up for it, not now, nor when it happened. And yes their are families today who still hold financial benefits gained from their ancestors superior military strength and willingness to take what didn't belong to them.

I agree. Guess you could call it Roman Colonialism. It does amaze me of peoples lack of understanding European history as well. When I hear talk from groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazi leaders of Aryan churches it makes me cringe. I always say to myself if you only knew how many different lines of bloods were in Europeans. That's why I cannot believe why churches use race as any pretext for condition of the gospel. There are thousands of mixes throughout the world. Even more so today.

On the progress end I would say that it's really all relevant to the resources available and who invented what first. I get on my little soap box on Polynesians for example. Since they sailed out of S. America in 250 BCE they had navigation means without a compass and superior sailing canoes which are still employed to this day. the fact the had this knowledge showed a high degree math skills yet as they landed in places such as Rapa Nui or Hawaii they did not progress very far after that. Europe surpassed them. However I associate this with lack of the necessary resources in such young volcanic islands. Such as no metal ore or the type of plants to produce paper and to some extent religious practices hampering progression.

[handys003]

So would you say the American revolution was not necessary for the gospel?

Reason enough? Wouldn't revolution either be right or wrong?

No I would not say the American revolution was necessary for the gospel. JS more than likely would have still had his vision unless the parents never got together. IMHO I think it was a bunch of business men ticked off at getting caught by the British and being taxed just as much as being looked down upon. John Hancock was constantly getting caught in doing illegal shipments and having his goods confiscated.

[handys003]

Do you believe George Washington was a hero or a terrorist? How would your religious views have influenced your decision to rebel or turn the other cheek if you were in General Washington's situation?

I don't agree with the term terrorist. It's to vague and the definition is to wide for interpreting what is considered terror.

He was a hero in my eyes as the challenges he faced were just enormous, and I could write a dissertation on such. In regards to British society though he was a rebel who should be hanged, and it was probably the sentiment in England back then.

[mbh26]

(you might want to read the satanic bible sometime)

I might have to take a rain check on that one. In some cultures/religions it's ok to steal. Take the gypsies for example. Since a gypsy was believed to have stolen one of the four spikes to be used in Jesus crucifixion, they believe that Jesus Himself gave them the right to steal once every four years. So now we can't teach people that it's wrong to steal because that violates separation of Church and state. He stole because that was his religion and his culture. You can't discriminate against him for that.

its a terrible shame you seem so bent against that freedom.

So are you saying that the president taking orders from the pope and people giving a tip out of Christian generosity are both examples of breaking the separation of Church and state? This country may not have been owned by the Catholic Church as other European predecessors but it surely was founded on Christian principles.

Yes I think it's a terrible shame that people can use separation of Church and state as a way to be shrewd and ruthless businessmen during the week and preach, sometimes even practice a little Christian kindness on Sunday. I also think it's a shame that people practice any religious principles regardless of their sect that do not agree with the princples of the one true religion and that religion is Christianity. The only redeeming grace I see in any of these religions is the extent to which they agree with Christianity. What do they have that Christianity lacks?

[mbh26]

I don't agree with the term terrorist. It's to vague and the definition is to wide for interpreting what is considered terror.

He was a hero in my eyes as the challenges he faced were just enormous, and I could write a dissertation on such. In regards to British society though he was a rebel who should be hanged, and it was probably the sentiment in England back then.

Ok, but we still have the same dilemma. Whether your British or American, should there not be one true answer? Was George Washington right to carry on this revolution or not?

[Droopy]

We view the settling of the west and the American Revolution very fondly in Church. After all, had the land not been stolen from the Indians, the Church would have no home now. How much thought did the pioneers give to the idea that the Indians owned the land? The Constitution didn't extend any rights to Native Americans either. Yet we say it was inspired by God? Would you say the early Church members believed in Manifest Destiny? Do you think they were right or wrong for so doing?

This opens up a very deep and hazy Pandora's box. The Amerindians that inhabited North American had no concept of ownership as understood in European cultures nor in other civilizations. They had "ancestral lands", some of long standing, and others of shorter duration but all supported by myths and lore of their origins. Many of the Indians, as well as Polynesians, had previously spent thousands of years doing to each other precisely what Europeans (who happened at that time to have the superior technology to make their conquests "stick"); had been doing to other less developed peoples: conquering and dominating. Nothing to see here really, save the fact that in this clash of civilizations, Europeans had the upper hand because of a quantum difference in technology.

Its difficult to "steal" where no legal concept of ownership exists. This is especially true with regard to the nomadic tribes, who moved around following their food supply or change of climate, and had no problem kicking out by force anyone already in the area (whether ancestral lands or no).

This is not to absolve European whites of any or their sins in colonizing America (but did they really need permission from the numerous and competing Indian tribes that already occupied the continent (did they own it in some sense?))? Why do not English, Scandinavians, Slaves, Irish, Jews, and Frenchmen have as much right to the continent as Amerindians?

Does anyone really believe that if the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, or Mohicans had been the ones with gunpowder, steel, cannon, and advanced sailing ships, and the Europeans the ones living in a hunter/gatherer state of technology, that many parents in Europe would not now be putting Kachina dolls in their children's Christmas stockings?

I just wonder why this idea of Europeans "stealing" the Indian's land keeps coming up in such discussions without at least a hat tip to the historical reality that many of the Indians ancestral lands were acquired in precisely that manner from other tribes? That is, there is nothing unique about the European conquests of the America's, as far as human behavior over historical time is concerned, and nothing about the Amerindians as people that made such a conquest particularly odious as compared to others, including their own (which, by the time Columbus arrived, had achieved genocidal fury centuries beforehand).

[mbh26]

handys003 this is just an off handed question and I'm sorry it derails the thread. I know very little about Polynesian history. Someone told me the polynesians came from Asia. They don't look anything like Asians to me. I understand the founder effect associated with island populations but it still seems like a very interesting genetic story if we could ever unravel it.

[mbh26]

Why do not English, Scandinavians, Slaves, Irish, Jews, and Frenchmen have as much right to the continent as Amerindians?

Legal fictions are invented with the end result already in mind. I do think our morality has changed through time. We now see revolution as morally evil. I can understand this based on some of the results. But I do see some virtue in the rules people have observed, even in a violent and deadly conflict. The revolution was not carried on furtively in a modern day terrorist manner with men posing as civilians by day and becoming soldiers at night. It's almost as if our ancestors recognized that the world was going to overfill from time to time and eventually we were going to have to kill each other. So let's at least do it in an honorable and upright way. Thus we have formal declarations of war, etc. We now live in a world where no holds are barred and the only thing that determines right or wrong is whether you survive or not.

I know that sounds outrageous, but even the Greeks understood that overpopulation was a big reason for territorial expansion and conquest. We may look at ancient Greece now and call the idea of overopopulation at that time ridiculous. But it's not just a question of land, it's a question of whether the world has developed economically enough to support that many inhabitants. Even then there were times when it had not for the simple fact that people needed more land to live then.

[Droopy]

Legal fictions are invented with the end result already in mind. I do think our morality has changed through time. We now see revolution as morally evil. I can understand this based on some of the results. But I do see some virtue in the rules people have observed, even in a violent and deadly conflict. The revolution was not carried on furtively in a modern day terrorist manner with men posing as civilians by day and becoming soldiers at night. It's almost as if our ancestors recognized that the world was going to overfill from time to time and eventually we were going to have to kill each other. So let's at least do it in an honorable and upright way. Thus we have formal declarations of war, etc. We now live in a world where no holds are barred and the only thing that determines right or wrong is whether you survive or not.

Excuse me if I observe that the above is a little incoherent. I'm not sure where this is all going. Deeds and titles of ownership are legal "fictions"? Others would call them legal "instruments".

I know that sounds outrageous, but even the Greeks understood that overpopulation was a big reason for territorial expansion and conquest. We may look at ancient Greece now and call the idea of overopopulation at that time ridiculous. But it's not just a question of land, it's a question of whether the world has developed economically enough to support that many inhabitants. Even then there were times when it had not for the simple fact that people needed more land to live then.

The War of Independence occurred because of overpopulation? Indians fought and killed one another for thousands of years because of overpopulation (there could only have been a few million Amerindians across the America's when colonization began).

[BCSpace]

This is not to absolve European whites of any or their sins in colonizing America (but did they really need permission from the numerous and competing Indian tribes that already occupied the continent (did they own it in some sense?))? Why do not English, Scandinavians, Slaves, Irish, Jews, and Frenchmen have as much right to the continent as Amerindians?

Does anyone really believe that if the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, or Mohicans had been the ones with gunpowder, steel, cannon, and advanced sailing ships, and the Europeans the ones living in a hunter/gatherer state of technology, that many parents in Europe would not now be putting Kachina dolls in their children's Christmas stockings?

I just wonder why this idea of Europeans "stealing" the Indian's land keeps coming up in such discussions without at least a hat tip to the historical reality that many of the Indians ancestral lands were acquired in precisely that manner from other tribes? That is, there is nothing unique about the European conquests of the America's, as far as human behavior over historical time is concerned, and nothing about the Amerindians as people that made such a conquest particularly odious as compared to others, including their own (which, by the time Columbus arrived, had achieved genocidal fury centuries beforehand).

Agreed. The politically correct image of the "noble savage" is not rooted in any sort of reality. In addition, a reality for all BoM believers is that the concept of manifest destiny likely was indeed inspired by God.

[Droopy]

Here are a couple of salient critiques of Diamond's environmental determinist view of societal history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/books/hanson200505200837.asp

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/bratland5.pdf

[Droopy]

Agreed. The politically correct image of the "noble savage" is not rooted in any sort of reality. In addition, a reality for all BoM believers is that the concept of manifest destiny likely was indeed inspired by God.

And indeed yet again, the BofM is clear that woe is to be unto those who scatter and destroy the remnant of Jacob through Joseph (even while making equally clear that such scattering and destruction has some because of wickedness).

There is no doubt that in a much more perfect world the Americas could have been colonized without all of the war and conflict that occurred. It is also true that the Amerindians could have been far, far nicer to each other in the intervening millenia (a little less genocidal warfare, cannibalism, exquisite tortures, and human sacrifice would have been a welcome change to the region, no doubt).

The "noble savage" of modern pc is nothing more than a fictional foil to place in opposition to western culture and the unique focus of evil in all the world...America and liberal democracy.

[handys003]

This opens up a very deep and hazy Pandora's box. The Amerindians that inhabited North American had no concept of ownership as understood in European cultures nor in other civilizations. They had "ancestral lands", some of long standing, and others of shorter duration but all supported by myths and lore of their origins. Many of the Indians, as well as Polynesians, had previously spent thousands of years doing to each other precisely what Europeans (who happened at that time to have the superior technology to make their conquests "stick"); had been doing to other less developed peoples: conquering and dominating. Nothing to see here really, save the fact that in this clash of civilizations, Europeans had the upper hand because of a quantum difference in technology.

Its difficult to "steal" where no legal concept of ownership exists. This is especially true with regard to the nomadic tribes, who moved around following their food supply or change of climate, and had no problem kicking out by force anyone already in the area (whether ancestral lands or no).

This is not to absolve European whites of any or their sins in colonizing America (but did they really need permission from the numerous and competing Indian tribes that already occupied the continent (did they own it in some sense?))? Why do not English, Scandinavians, Slaves, Irish, Jews, and Frenchmen have as much right to the continent as Amerindians?

Does anyone really believe that if the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, or Mohicans had been the ones with gunpowder, steel, cannon, and advanced sailing ships, and the Europeans the ones living in a hunter/gatherer state of technology, that many parents in Europe would not now be putting Kachina dolls in their children's Christmas stockings?

I just wonder why this idea of Europeans "stealing" the Indian's land keeps coming up in such discussions without at least a hat tip to the historical reality that many of the Indians ancestral lands were acquired in precisely that manner from other tribes? That is, there is nothing unique about the European conquests of the America's, as far as human behavior over historical time is concerned, and nothing about the Amerindians as people that made such a conquest particularly odious as compared to others, including their own (which, by the time Columbus arrived, had achieved genocidal fury centuries beforehand).

Actually they did need permission as early colonies of Vikings abandon N. America from being attacked and starvation due to ignorance of the geology of the land. Early colonies in the Americas would have been wiped out if not for the compassion of tribes nearby. To which by the way some colonies did not get compassion and were wiped out. Cortes did not single handedly beat the Aztecs with his small militia. He was helped by many tribes that were oppressed by the Aztecs. If they had instead remained loyal to Montezuma I doubt Cortes would have succeeded for Spain. However I do agree with your assessment of tribes conquering each other it was evident with Polynesians, but that does not justify the act. Let's talk about stealing from aboriginal people. Would you say that non-European people who had established their own nation are subject to theft by let's say the USA?

[handys003]

Agreed. The politically correct image of the "noble savage" is not rooted in any sort of reality. In addition, a reality for all BoM believers is that the concept of manifest destiny likely was indeed inspired by God.

What is a noble savage? That is a European Colonial Mentality description.

[handys003]

handys003 this is just an off handed question and I'm sorry it derails the thread. I know very little about Polynesian history. Someone told me the Polynesians came from Asia. They don't look anything like Asians to me. I understand the founder effect associated with island populations but it still seems like a very interesting genetic story if we could ever unravel it.

I just wrote a long page on the subject for you, but as I was at the end my wifes stupid cat walked on the board and it was obliterated!!!!!! I'm tired and ready to throttle a cat, so I'll do it again tomorrow. It's late and I have to drive a 100 miles to give a blessing to my grandson tomorrow. I'll write it Sunday or Monday. Aloha.

I'll give a little bit to chew on. Yes they are Asian related but not as those who presume by the Austronesian theory as some propose.

Here is some pictures of an Incan voyaging canoe and a Polynesian voyaging canoe attached. Same rigging and same designed hull employed today only the materials used were different.

BTW does anyone know if there is away to save a draft copy here so it doesn't get burned other than using my works processor?