Violence and the negotiation of the law

Violence defines the natural limits of the law as the willingness to engage in violence in the face of the law means the ineffectiveness of the law.

All ethical consideration must thus before anything else respect the limits of acceptance of its policies.

Still, conflicts are not always avoidable. There are though two different types of conflict:

1. a transgression against the way God created man,
2. a clash between men's preferences.

In the former case the law is within its right to return the transgression and even if it wouldn't return it, the transgression would eventually still be returned. Man, in correcting wrongs of this nature, is simply purging an otherwise festering wound.

In the latter case the law has to yield to the balance of power so as not to cause transgression.

That is the religious view on the outlines of the law, which is not the same as the religious advice to the single believer.

The single believer has preferences, which he is supposed to honour. If he finds himself in an environment, which is heavily at odds with these, it is best for him to leave it. If, on the other hand, his environment largely agrees with them, but is like him forced to abandon them, he is providing the greater service, when he supports the resistance.

In any case a believer has no excuse to commit a transgression first.

As to returning transgressions the intended purging will often be quite impossible for a single believer to achieve on his own or as part of whatever group he may belong to. If it was possible for him, he would do well to purge. If it is not, he has to weigh whether whatever partial effort he may contribute will improve the festering or worsen it, for the latter is quite possible.

In any case a man with the certainty of prayer (someone who knows that his prayers manifest themselves) does not do wrong, when he leaves it at prayers in social matters.