Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

Facts and Figures

Church View

Facts and Figures

Roman Catholic View

Based on the given table, we can assume that

the Philippine Government is working earnestly regarding violence in the country since the number of Private Armed Groups (PAGs) and other threat groups are the same for the year 2011 and 2012 with the basis of more than half from 2010 and greater than usual target for 2016

compared to the 2011 & 2012 actual data.

We can also assume that Filipinos don't want any

violence anymore at this time to the Philippine government since the number of PAGs are the same for the year 2011 & 2012 disregarding the number of recruits per year of a PAG.

Protestant View

Biblical View

In the Expounding of the Law (part of the

Sermon on the Mount), Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

I Chronicles 22:7-10 (cf. I Chr. 28:2-3)

David was forbidden to build God’s house because he was “a man of war” and had “shed so much blood on the earth.” This shows that shedding blood was always a mark against someone and was never God’s ideal.

Roman Catholic View

Protestant View

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . .

Ethical/Moral View

Some are very clear that, in accordance with Jesus' own teachings, violence is not justified under any circumstance. Within the mainstream of the Church, "the historic Peace Churches" (mainly the Mennonites and the Quakers) have adopted the pacifist position of rejecting war and violence for any reason (Ariarajah).

Violence and

Nonviolence

Introduction

“Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate (Arendt, 1972, p. 158).” and “The aim of non-violent conflict is to convert your opponent; to win over their mind and heart and persuade them that your point of view is right (Ethics Guide: Non-violence).”

Historical Background/Development

Violence, particularly political violence, represents a disturbance to the political equilibrium of a state, a breakdown of its political system (Leiden & Schmitt, 1968, p. 3).

Nonviolence is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition. It comes from the belief that hurting people, animals or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and refers to a general philosophy of abstention from violence based on moral, religious or spiritual principles (Nonviolence).

Revolution simply means “the acceptance

of violence in order to bring about change,” or as “the wide range of circumstances – from mere threats of force to major civil wars – in which illegitimate violence is employed within a country to effect political change (Leiden & Schmitt, 1968).”

Arguments

Nonviolence as a philosophy has recently

shown great potential in the life work of Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, The Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh (Williamson-Jones).

Mahatma Gandhi used mass non-violent

resistance to change racist anti-Indian laws in South Africa and then to try to bring down British colonialism in India.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey

certain laws, demands, or commands of a government, or of an occupying international power (Civil Disobedience).

Civil disobedience arises when a significant number of

citizens have become convinced either that the normal channels of change no longer function, and grievances will not be heard or acted upon, or that, on the contrary, the government is about to change and has embarked upon and persists in modes of action whose legality and constitutionality are open to grave doubt (Arendt, 1972, p. 74).

Nonviolence

Arguments For

Violence

Arguments Against

Arguments For

> Clear violation of human rights

> Disconnection of unity among the

government and civilians which will lead to amendment of the constitution in favor of the government

> There is a low probability of assurance that

both parties would agree

> Solution/s to a problem would not be

immediately implemented

> Can be used to convince people of

doing something

> Allows someone to show his/her

dominance and become the leader of something

> Allows someone to bend other people

to his/her will

> Can be used to stop other violence

Reasons to Prefer Non-Violent Resistance:

1) Moral obligation (Sharp 1963), violence ‘is

in itself an evil’ (Zinn 2003);

2) Non-violence is more desirable than

violence as a means, since one of the principles guiding advocates of civil disobedience may be the belief in a non-violent world as an end goal (Zinn 2003);

3) One of the points of civil disobedience is to

communicate with and educate others; the use of indiscriminate violence, particularly against people, turns other people against the cause (Zinn 2003);

4) Violent conflict is too costly (Zunes 1994);

5) Unarmed methods are more effective

(Zunes 1994) (Alison, 2005).

Political Issues

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi