deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
Shop Similar Prints
This Print Not Available
Download Image
PNG, 1000×600
more ▶

More from ~BlameThe1st

Featured in Groups:

Details

November 24, 2012
242 KB
1000×600
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 21
Favourites: 5 [who?]

Views: 337 (0 today)
Downloads: 24 (0 today)
[x]
:iconblamethe1st:
Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention
from The Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison (1838)


Assembled in Convention, from various sections of the American Union, for the promotion of peace on earth and good-will among men, we, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause which we love, to the country in which we live, and to the world, to publish a declaration, expressive of the principles we cherish, the purposes we aim to accomplish, and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful, universal reformation.

We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government; neither can we oppose any such government by a resort to physical force. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of mankind. We are bound by the laws of a kingdom which is not of this world; the subjects of which are forbidden to fight; in which Mercy and Truth are met together, and Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other; which has no state lines, no national partitions, no geographical boundaries; in which there is no distinction of rank, or division of caste, or inequality of sex; the officers of which are Peace, its extractors Righteousness, its walls Salvation, and its gates Praise; and which is destined to break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms.

Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests, rights, liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence, we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury. The Prince of Peace, under whose stainless banner we rally, came not to destroy, but to save, even the worst of enemies. He has left us an example, that we should follow his steps. God commandeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

We conceive, that if a nation has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no individual possesses that right in his own case. The unit cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. If one man may take life, to obtain or defend his rights, the same license must necessarily be granted to communities, states, and nations. If he may use a dagger or a pistol, they may employ cannon, bomb-shells, land and naval forces. The means of self-preservation must be in proportion to the magnitude of interests at stake and the number of lives exposed to destruction. But if a rapacious and bloodthirsty soldiery, thronging these shores from abroad, with intent to commit rapine and destroy life, may not be resisted by the people or magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public peace or of private security. No obligation can rest upon Americans to regard foreigners as more sacred in their persons than themseles, or to give them a monopoly of wrong-doing with impunity.

The dogma, that all the governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is not less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom and equality, unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be, in any nation, are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ, in the treatment of enemies; therefore, they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore, their overthrow, by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable.

We register our testimony, not only against all wars, whether offensive or defensive, but all prepations for war; against every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia system and a standing army; against all military chieftains and soldiers; against all monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits; against all appropriations for the defence of a nation by force and arms, on the part of any legislative body; against every edict of government requiring of its subjects military service. Hence, we deem it unlawful to bear arms, or to hold a military office.

As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to compel men to do right, on pain of imprisonent or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.

It follows, that we cannot sue any man at law, to compel him by force to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us or others; but if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our cloak, rather than subject him to punishment.

We believe that the penal code of the old covenant, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, has been abrogated by Jesus Christ; and that, under the new covenant, the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined upon all his disciples, in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from his enemies, or set them upon a pillory, or cast them into prison, or hang them upon a gallows, is obviously not to forgive, but to take retribution. Vengeance is mine—I will repay, saith the Lord.

The history of mankind is crowded with evidence proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful disposition of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated from earth only by goodness; that it is not safe to rely on an arm of flesh, upon a man whose breath is in his nostrils, to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth, for the violent who resort to the sword are destined to perish with the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy—of safety to property, life, and liberty—of public quietude and private enjoyment—as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for all possible consequences, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing force.

We advocate no jacobinical doctrine. The spirit of jacobinism is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of Christ. If we abide by our principles, it is impossible for us to be disorderly or plot treason, or participate in any evil work; we shall submit to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake; obey all the requirements of Government, except such as we deem contrary to the commands of the gospel; and in no case resist the operation of the law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.

But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail iniquity, in high places and in low places; to apply our principles to all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions; and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever.

It appears to us a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, and spears into pruning-hooks, and men shall not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell or wield these deadly weapons, do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.

Having thus briefly, but frankly, stated our principles and purposes, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt, in carrying our object into effect.

We expect to prevail through the foolishness of preaching—striving to commend ourselves unto every man’s conscience, in the sight of God. From the press, we shall promulgate our sentiments as widely as practicable. We shall endeavour to secure the co-operation of all persons, of whatever name or sect. The triumphant progress of the cause of Temperance and Abolition in our land, through the instrumentality of benevolent and voluntary associations, encourages us to combine our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater cause. Hence, we shall employ lecturers, circulate tracts and publications, form societies, and petition our State and national governments, in relation to the subject of Universal Peace. It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices of society, respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of enemies.

In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that, in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity, even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The ongodly and violent, the pround and pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah, whose example we are humbly striving to imitate. If we suffer with him, we know that we shall reign with him. We shall not be so afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty, not in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, as though some strange thing had happened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ’s sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls to God, in well-doing, as unto the faithful Creator. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for Christ’s sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may be the opposition arrayed against them—in solemn testimony of our faith in their divine origin—we hereby affix our signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, giving ourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and resolving in the strength of the Lord God calmly and meekly to abide the issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the writer (from Wikipedia):

William Lloyd Garrison (December 10, 1805 – May 24, 1879) was a prominent American abolitionist, journalist, and social reformer. He is best known as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, and was one of the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society. He promoted "immediate emancipation" of slaves in the United States. Garrison was also a prominent voice for the women's suffrage movement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

About this selection (from Wikipedia):

The Liberator (1831-1865) was an abolitionist newspaper founded by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831. Garrison published weekly issues of The Liberator from Boston continuously for 35 years, from January 1, 1831, to the final issue of January 1, 1866. Although its circulation was only about 3,000, and three-quarters of subscribers were African Americans in 1834,[1] the newspaper earned nationwide notoriety for its uncompromising advocacy of "immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves" in the United States. Garrison set the tone for the paper in his famous open letter "To the Public" in the first issue:
... Assenting to the "self-evident truth" maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights -- among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population. In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popluar but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My consicence in now satisfied. I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. ...
The Liberator faced harsh resistance from several state legislatures and local groups: for example, North Carolina indicted Garrison for felonious acts, and the Vigilance Association of Columbia, South Carolina, offered a reward of $1,500 ($25,957.20 in 2005 dollars) to those who identified distributors of the paper.

The Liberator continued for three decades from its founding through the end of the American Civil War. Garrison ended the newspaper's run with a valedictory column at the end of 1865, when the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Flower Power" by Bernie Boston.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconunclerice:
~UncleRice Dec 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
$25 grand bounty for distributors? I could see a scam that involved two person partners. One is a distributor, one is the bounty hunter, they split the rewards. A few dozen of these team should bankrupt the place. Too bad slavery was re-branded as credit.

Indeed the nations of the world did not create the land they occupy. As such, I consider them as nothing more than occupiers. They serve a purpose, but at some point they will have to go. At some point God will say: "It is self evident that you are made of fail and thusly you must go. They won't do it willingly though. That is why allegiance to political groups must be carefully measured.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
~BlameThe1st Dec 17, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Not really sure how to respond to that.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
~CorvusCorax92 Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I am a firm believer in the non-aggression principle, so I love seeing other people in agreement with me, but I just don't see how you can reconcile that principle with worshiping and serving a god like Yahweh. I know you're a Christian, and I don't mean any offense to you; but it's difficult for me, as a Humanist, to see how the two can be squared.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
~BlameThe1st Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, throughout history, there have been many Christian thinkers who advocated for non-violence, especially when it came to war. (Ever heard of the "Just War" doctrine?)

The problem is that the non-violent Christians tend to be drowned out by those who advocate violence and war, which is why we have crap like the Crusades and Inquisition, and in modern times, neocon theocrats who support torture and preemptive war.

For the most part, the Quakers are a better representation of Christ's teaching of "turn the other cheek" than the current crop of conservative Christians.

As for God, comparing him to man is like comparing man to animals. Why isn't okay for animals to kill other animals, and man to kill animals, but not okay for man to kill other men? Answer: because man is of a higher intelligence than animals, and therefore, of a different moral standard than the lowly animals. The same standard applies to God.

It should also be noted that it's been God's omnipotence that has justified the Christian explanation of liberty and equality. Because God is of a greater power than man, no man can claim greater power over any other man. To do so would be to become a tyrant.

This has been the thinking of our Founding Fathers. If you check out my signature, you'll notice that the saying is based upon one used by Christians during the Revolution, and their justification for breaking from the King of England.

I know that may not convince you or other atheists, but it's the most coherent answer I can provide.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
~CorvusCorax92 Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I've heard similar thinking, and I understand that, but for me it goes beyond what would be considered if committed by a human wanton mass murder and destruction, needless suffering, etc. Do you, for instance, believe in hell? How can an all-loving compassionate being condemn people who violate his rules to eternal tortuous suffering, agony, and misery? I get that he wouldn't want them in heaven, I get that: it's his property. lol
But why not simply 'un-create' those that don't meet his expectations? And what indeed of pointless suffering, especially of creatures who are said to have no soul, yet who play very little role in human lives, such as parasitic wasps that sting every part of their victim's nervous systems to painfully paralyze it, after laying their eggs in them, from which their larva will hatch to eat the victim alive, slowly and painfully. If Yahweh is somehow proven to exist, I still wouldn't be a Christian, for reasons such as those, and more.

As you say, I doubt any philosophical epiphanies will be reached on either side here; I just wanted to get your take on things like this. It's always interesting to see the different ways that others think about the world. :)
Reply
:iconunclerice:
~UncleRice Dec 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
1: The Bible is a most inconvenient book. It has a bad habit of not saying what you, or others, think it says or want it to say. It can be a painful lesson to those that don't bother to actually read it.

2: The concept of Hell as a place of eternal punishment is a pagan construct adopted by Katamari Ball style pseudo Christian religions. Death, as described in the bible, is more like a computer that has crashed and burned, but there is a back up drive in God's care where no active processing happens, but an inert storage of a person is made until later.

3: The whole issue raised in the Garden of Eden was not over a piece of fruit, but over whether humans, as opposed to God, had the right to rule. The last 6,000 years or so has been a lab experiment to determine the answer. The guilt for the deaths belongs to those who think they can rule themselves, as his original plan did not involve any death of humans.
Reply
:iconcorvuscorax92:
~CorvusCorax92 Dec 13, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
1. I've read the bible three times cover-to-cover, and individual portions of it more times than I can count; my grandmother is a pastor. This thorough reading of it was one of the things that led me to deconvert from Christianity.

2. Hell as we know it (i.e., as eternal torment) is firmly rooted in the parable of Lazarus and Dives, wherein Jesus himself contrasts sheol (hell) with the bosom of Abraham, clearly stating that one cannot cross over from one to the other. This is a reflection of popular Jewish notions at the time--since abandoned by most Jews--that sheol, or 'the grave' was composed of two layers: one for the righteous and the other for the wicked, where the former await paradise, and the latter face eternal torment. Christianity preserved this temporary change in Jewish eschatology, yielding the modern notion of hell. Paganism was not involved, and also: I have no idea what/who 'Katamari Ball' is...

3. All I need to know is that this fruit was supposed to be the fruit of the tree of knowledge. What knowledge that is, is immaterial. When your religion starts off blaming all the woes of the world on people choosing knowledge over ignorance, I'm done listening. I rule myself, and I accept the consequences, 'failure' or not.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Good read. You mentioned eye for an eye. Here's what Exodus states-
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Something tells me that by Jesus' time on Earth, man went too far from the original intent of punishing people who almost cause or did cause a woman to lose her baby to using the punishment for other crimes not described.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
~BlameThe1st Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes, Garrison is a good read. I recently learned of him while reading Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You." Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist, while Garrison was a Quaker. Both took Christ's teaching of "turn the other cheek" to its ultimate conclusion by opposing all measures of violence including getting involved with government, which in and of itself is enforced by violence. So that meant they did not believe in war for any reason, nor did they support utilizing the police, or filing lawsuits, or voting in elections, or running for office. While I wouldn't take my distaste for government to that extreme, I do support them standing by their principles and convictions.

And as for your verse, I do enjoy it as, while it does not directly forbid abortion, does show that, under OT law, the fetus was viewed as on the same level as a full-grown human being.
Reply
:icongraeystone:
Christian Anarchist? That's a new one on me. For Christians, while law does not save it still has it purposes. God's Law is so we know what is right and wrong and to help us stay on the right path. Man's law(the ethichal/good laws anyway) so we do not end up in chaos and disorder.

As for war and peace, I'm neither a War Hawk or Peace Dove and frankly neither should be the presidents. The Presidential Seal shows the best path for the President - The Bald Eagle holds in one claw the Olive Branch of Peace and in the other claw, the Arrows of War. A president should be the same way while having the insight, knowledge, and wisdom to know when to use which without reservation.
Reply
Add a Comment: