Hi, I'm Zack and I'm an atheist.

I've been reading some forum posts that have me more than a little concerned. It seems that violence of any sort is absolutely verboten to some people, no matter what the situation. Personally I find this ironic, intellectual rebels ready and willing to be subjugated. To some extent I understand why people who find the concept of an afterlife at least questionable, would take issue with actions that have potentially final, irrevocable consequences. What I don't understand is the inability of pacifists to see the bigger picture. We are in a continual struggle here in America with Evangelicals who want to return this country to it's "Christian roots". In the rest of the world Islam is the fastest growing religion, and it would appear that their most motivated leaders do not have tolerance in mind. If either should succeed we may find ourselves in a situation where violence is our only option.

In one of the accounts Sapient provided  regarding the altercation  with Greydon Square ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14187 ) it was revealed that the two witnesses Greydon brought with him ran to get "help". I'm no mathematician or military strategist, but I think it's fair to say they were the help they needed. It would appear that there were at least four people present, Sapient, Greydon, and the two witnesses. When Greydon attacked that left two people to restrain him. Once Sapient was free, if he was in any condition to do so, he could have helped in restraining his assailant. Hell, even just one witness could have stayed behind. How many people does it take to get help? Who were they going to get? The cops? That's great, but how does that help the victim in the meantime? Pacifism allows bad things to happen while looking to someone else to make it stop. Just last night I watched a video on Nothingtoxic.com of a guy getting beaten to death by a group of people. It took a minute maybe two. One well placed punch or kick could kill you and these people left Greydon to his business while they got someone else to intervene for them.

Maybe they were scared. Maybe when fight or flight kicked in they chose flight. Maybe if we are intelligent enough to reason out all the situations in which violence is acceptable, we are intelligent enough to tune our instincts towards decisive and effective action when unwarranted violence occurs. It's my understanding that Greydon is bi-polar, but despite his personal issues in the heat of the moment someone should have hit him over the head with a chair or something.

In another post regarding first time rapists ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14230 ) a number of people expressed disgust with the idea of mutilation and death sentences for these people. Even for repeat offenders and particularly heinous crimes. While I agree that people shouldn't suffer punishments that offer no hope for redemption the first time, we have to admit that at some point it doesn't make sense to sustain career criminals. Since we are not beholden to a higher power (Karma is bull shit too.) there is no reason to offer forgiveness to people who cannot or will not get their shit together. As with Greydon, if you know that going off of your meds will make you unstable and potentially violent, and you decide while in a rational and cogent state of mind to do so, you are absolutely accountable for your actions.

In regards to assassinations of certain political leaders, I feel that this too is justified under certain circumstances.  The  murders  of Dr. King,  John and Robert Kennedy, Ghandi, Malcolm X, Abraham Lincoln, etc.. were unjustified in that they were committed by people or groups whose aims were criminal, oppressive, or religiously misguided. I defy anyone however, to tell me how it would have been wrong to assassinate the likes of Bin laden, Hitler (Don't bring that "you mentioned Hitler so your point is invalid" shit), Stalin, etc.. during their respective ascent to power. Some may argue that someone possibly worse might have taken their place. I say there is only one way to find out. I would rather try to prevent people like this from gaining power and influence and see who fills the void, than allow them to reach a point of notoriety and potency. We missed several opportunities to kill Bin Laden some ten years ago. To do so now will be a hollow victory (Zawahiri as well) because of his successes and popularity and the Muslim concept of honor and martyrdom. His message has been spread and we failed to prevent it. I fully agree that we missed an even more important opportunity In our handling of the Soviet/Afghan conflict, but that's spilled milk and so is 9/11. Now what?

What do we do in future instances? Is it really acceptable to stand by in periods of violence because you don't believe in violence? If you're going to get someone  to stop the violence for you, shouldn't you just take reasonable action yourself? Does anyone think that tyrants and maniacs will stop because you asked them to?

If certain religious groups get their way it's going to be very difficult to be an out and proud free thinker. They are tireless in pushing their agenda on other people. Even if reason wins, it will require constant maintenance. If we lose we may find all legal recourse shut down shortly thereafter.

What will you do when the shit goes down?