For one, I don’t know that I like the idea of “this dichotomy when we give some freedoms up for the greater, more desire ‘inalienable rights.’” If they are truly inalienable, should they not be, by default, and without the limitation of other freedoms, already in our possession?

And if we seek freedom for others, as in your example with the holocaust, should it not be the prerogative of the owners of the right to life, be willing to lay it down if they are seeking that right for those who do not have it? Emphasis being on those who already have those rights. I believe that there should be no power but the people themselves to take up or lay down these “inalienable” rights. Especially not the government. But in this case, this also means you are responsible not to take that right from others, even those who are taking it from others.

That’s idealism though. That’s not really how it works. But I continue to go back and forth about whether or not, we as Christ-followers, we should be idealists or pragmatists.

Also, for my own clarity, could you restate “i would argue that violent rebellion towards a divinely establish government in authority over my own citizenship.” I’m not sure I understand.

Thank you all the same. Very thought provoking questions/statement.

this is not such a simple, cut and dry issue. believers ought to pursue justice for the oppressed and needy, to great extents. we are called to give our lives for this cause, even.

yet, when does opposition to an oppressive government turn from non-violent to violent? is there any such redemptive response? what of german citizens unwilling to sit back and observe countless jewish deaths? was there coup ‘de tat an immoral act?

i would argue that violent rebellion towards a divinely establish government in authority over my own citizenship. that being said, the line between pursuing social justice one way and another can get obnoxiously blurry.