Resurrexi Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 "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." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])
picchick Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 1) There were fundamental rights that were being violated. 2) I am pretty sure we told the King a couple times over to knock it off 3) I do not know what they would constitute as worse disorders 4) Yeah we were pretty sucessful. However, I am not sure how sure anyone is of success when they are battling a seemingly giant 5) Goes with 2. I voted Yes
Hassan Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885371' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:45 AM']"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." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])[/quote] Prolly not. Although I'm glad it happened.
Resurrexi Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1885379' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:51 AM']Prolly not. Although I'm glad it happened.[/quote] It wouldn't be so bad to be like Australia.
Hassan Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885382' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:52 AM']It wouldn't be so bad to be like Australia.[/quote] Wouldn't we be more like Canada? Ewwwww.....
Resurrexi Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1885384' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:54 AM']Wouldn't we be more like Canada? Ewwwww..... [/quote] I was going to mention Canada as well, but I realized that doing so would not advance my argument that it would be good for the United States to belong to the Commonwealth.
Resurrexi Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Edited June 7, 2009 by Resurrexi
Resurrexi Posted June 7, 2009 Author Posted June 7, 2009 I do not really see how forbidding trade with non-British traders constitutes a "grave violation of fundamental rights."
princessgianna Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885371' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:45 AM']"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." ([url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm"]Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243[/url])[/quote] Catholics were not allowed to practice the Faith originally. Granted there was not a lot of Catholic Resistance (excepting Charles Carroll of course). Area of Maryland (should be pronounced Mary land) was the only colony that "allowed" Catholicism. Carroll with Benjamin Franklin (he was a joke imho) went to try get Canadian forces to help but the smart Catholci Canadians knew how much Catholics were bashed and refused to help. There you go a history lesson! Yes? [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1885550' date='Jun 7 2009, 11:00 AM']Oh you silly Canada bashers. [/quote] Silly [i]silly[/i] people indeed! Edited June 7, 2009 by princessgianna
Maximilianus Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 [quote name='princessgianna' post='1885645' date='Jun 7 2009, 04:20 PM']...Maryland (should be pronounced Mary land) was the only colony that "allowed" Catholicism.[/quote] Yeah, until it was usurped by Puritans and eventually done in by English penal laws againts Catholics.
kenrockthefirst Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I'm not sure. Britain bankrupted itself fighting the Seven Year's War / French and Indian Wars. Granted, this was done to protect its national interests but at the same time, the war was fought to protect the American colonists. In any event, while Parliament and the King were a bit ham-fisted in their dealings with the American colonists, especially with respect to taxation and the quartering of troops, I'm not convinced that their authority was illegitimate. I'm more of the view that the money and political classes in the American colonies felt that they could get a "better deal" independently than they could as British subjects.
Didacus Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Canada gained their independance by asking for it. (Sure, we kept the queen and all, but even that is on the way out soon) Just a little papist commentary there. Back to you Bob.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) I'm all in favour of scrapping the monarchy, by the way. I think it's a useless part of our society that's only there for nostalgia's sake. EDIT: I mean the Canadian monarchy. I'm saying nothing about monarchies in any other country. Edited June 9, 2009 by Nihil Obstat
cassandragirl Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885386' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:56 AM']I was going to mention Canada as well, but I realized that doing so would not advance my argument that it would be good for the United States to belong to the Commonwealth. [/quote] Whatever benefit there was from the commonwealth seems to be missed today. On my visit to Oz and Kiwiland - they felt they got nothing for it - they pay for the upkeep of the royals nd get to put her picture on their moneyand that is about it.
picchick Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885421' date='Jun 7 2009, 02:59 AM']I do not really see how forbidding trade with non-British traders constitutes a "grave violation of fundamental rights."[/quote] Um...it was more than that, as many have posted already here. Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history.
Socrates Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Don't tread on me! (I think we should all also note our own government now violates more rights than King George's did back in the day. Secession I say!)
Niccolò Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1885379' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:51 AM']Prolly not. Although I'm glad it happened.[/quote] I tend to agree. [quote name='picchick' post='1887156' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:42 PM']Forbidding trade is a small part. They also did not have freedom of speech. They also had to allow any soldier to enter their home without being able to say no. So...I think it is more than just forbidding trade. Perhaps you should review early American history. [/quote] Is freedom of speech that criticizes the government a "fundamental right"? Obviously we're looking at this from an American viewpoint, but in many other societies now and in the past this is not a "fundamental right." I don't know if I'd classify quartering troops and the kind of speech suppression going on in the colonies as "grave." Also I don't think the American Revolution passes the other requirements (#4 I'm a bit iffy on; we DID win, but at the time I don't think an objective observer would say there was well-founded hope for victory).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now