Opinion+Questions

Did the colonists have the legal and Christian right to rebel against British rule? Explain your answer with specific details.
I don’t think there is a real answer. Did the Americans have the right or didn’t they? In some ways the British did break the Social Contract and according to John Locke //“The people have the right and even the responsibility to rebel if the government acts in an unjustly manor.”// In some ways they didn’t. Most of the taxes and acts that were placed on the colonists did have a purpose and eventually would help they colonies grow and succeed, so I don’t think they broke it by doing that, if at all. The Writs of Assistance act was going way too far. Soldiers could search anywhere and take anything they wanted; even if they didn’t think it was a smuggled good. So yes, I think at that point the social contract was broken.

ES-SOTH

I think that they did have the right to rebel against British rule. I say this because the British had some acts that didn’t seem fair or a “just” thing to do to the colonist, like the Writs of Assistance. In this act, the British passed a law that the British troops could go through the colonist’s homes and search for smuggled goods. I think that it is fine if the British troops would have a search warrant, but when they would take things for their own pleasure, that’s when I think they crossed the line. So with this I think they did have the right to rebel, because in my own perspective, I think they did break the social contract.

BM-SOTH

I think that the colonists did have a legal right to rebel against the British, bu they did not do it in a very Christian way. The British were being unfair in that they were taxing the colonists differently than they were taxing the British back home. The war was part of the reason that the British started taxing the colonists, but if they needed to raise money to help pay for the expenses of the war, or to help raise money for the government, they should have taxed the British too. The fact that the colonists rebelled was not the best way to handle the situation. I know that the colonists had tried to talk to Britain, and that it had not worked, but there was probably a better way to go against it than to rebel. This way I am unaware of, but with some thought I know it is possible. I think that the colonists had the right to rebel, but they should have done it in a different way, and if that didn't work, then they could rebel.

PS-SOTH

I think that the colonists had the right to rebel but not at first. At first I think it seemed reasonable for the British to tax the colonists because the British protected them in the French and Indian War. It’s not that unreasonable to ask for money if they are doing something for you. Eventually some of the laws the British made got a little out of hand. I think the laws ended up that way because of things the colonists did like the Boston Tea Party. Once the laws got a little more abused, like the Writs of Assistance, then they had the right to rebel. They also had a Christian right because that is what they believed in. They believed that they should be able to practice any religion they wanted and they also didn’t believe in a monarchy. When the British were being cruel to the colonists they were destroying all that they believed.

AS-SOTH

I think they had a legal right to rebel against the British government. Eventually the colonists would have rebelled even if they didn’t have a right, but that is just my thought. The colonists did have a Christian right because their rebelling for what they believe. It’s like they are fighting for what they think is right for them to live. The British government went too far with all the taxing and for really weird things, like the stamp act, I mean to be tax on every written document. So I think that they had a legal and Christian right to rebel.

EY-SOTH

Yes the colonists did have the legal and Christian right to rebel because the British Parliament had placed taxes and search warrants on the colonists that gave British soldiers the chance to abuse the colonists and take their “smuggled goods.” This was one way that the British government had broken the “social contract” that SOTH students talked about that was thought of in the Age of Reason by John Locke. According to Locke, if the government is just, the people have the responsibility to obey, if the government is unjust, the people have the right and the responsibility to rebel and over throw the government.

RS-SOTH

I believe that there will be no real answer. The colonists did have a right to rebel and yet they didn't. They were taxed by the British and they complained about it. It's not like they wouldn't be taxed in the future. That's pretty much how we run America today--on taxes! The money for taxes did build up over time but it wasn't like it was going to a pointless cause. I do not think that with these taxes they had a right to rebel. When the British had a general search warrant that they could go in for anything they wanted, that was taking it too far. The Navigation Acts was also a good reason for the colonists to rebel. It would take too long to import and export goods. Another key thing was that there didn't seem to be the same taxes on the English people that were placed upon the colonies. So in some cases, the British may have been unjust but in other cases, they weren't. How do you draw the line? At what point was that line crossed? You can't really tell when you don't know what the boundaries and rules are.

As Christians, the 4th Commandment states: "Honor your father and mother." In the meaning, it says: "We should fear and love God so that we do not despise or anger our parents //__or other authorities__// but honor them, __//serve and obey them//__, love and cherish them." Other authorities include the government, teachers coaches and pastors.God places these people in a place of authority for a reason and perhaps the reason was that the people needed guidance from the British. The British were in a position of authority and they were to be respected. On the other hand, the only time when you can not obey the authority is when they are not acting in your best interest. In some cases, the British were acting in the Americans best interest but in some cases not. You could make a really good argument whether you think that they did have the Christian right to rebel or not.

My opinion is still that there is no real answer. I don't think that we'll ever be able to tell when we don't know where to draw the line between good and bad; just and unjust.

SB-SOTH

I believe that the colonists had the rights to rebel. I believe this because they had no representation, which almost made them not a part of Great Britain. If they were not a part of Britain, they wouldn't need to follow the rules put out by Great Britian. I also believe God would support the colonists decisions to break away from Great Britain because, God understood what the colonists were going through and loved them. It states in the bible all things work out for the good of those who love him. So I believe that Christ would support the colonist's ways. (to be to separate from Great Britain.)

GW-OSL

Yes, I think that the colonists had legal and Christian rights to rebel against the British rule. All people are entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. When the king ordered the colonists to keep the British soldiers in their house, I thought King George went too far. The king could have made big houses for the soldiers to stay in. The colonists had the right to defend their homes. I personally wouldn’t want to have multiple soldiers living in my home. Also, If Great Britain had representation why couldn’t the colonists in America have representation? America was part of Britain’s territory. The colonists also had the rights to rebel against that. It would be fair.

LG-OSL

Yes, I also believe the colonists had the legal and Christian right to rebel againsed the British. I think this way because all people should speak their opinion, and when the colonists did find some of the king’s ideas to be inaccurate, they protested but were declined because of the loss to have a saying any matter to what laws were past for the people. Also God gives us the right to stand up for what we believe,like when God freed the Hebrews from the slavery from the Egyptians ( they were a rebel to the Egyptians), so therefor God gives us the right to stand up for our right as people.

AV-OSL

The colonists didn’t have the legal right to rebel against the British, but they rebelled in the only possible way. The British were very unjust and the colonists reacted very swiftly like when they dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor. The colonists were supposed to obey everything that the told them, but that’s not always how life works. There’s always going to be a person who doesn’t follow directions.

The colonists had the Christian right to declare independence from Great Britain. The colonists had the right to have a say in everything that was happening because God has said that all people are created equal in His image. The British were making the colonists look like their little minions even though they had the same rights as the British.

SR-OSL

The colonists did not have the legal right to rebel against the British. The British gave them all these laws that they had to abide to. For example, the British told the colonists that they had to abide to the Stamp Act. When the colonists decided to rebel they were breaking the law. But the British did issue this so the colonists had to follow it.

The colonists had the Christian right to rebel against the British. The British shouldn’t have issued all these tax laws. One of the reasons the colonists came to America was because they wanted to be free and not have all these British laws. So I think God wanted the colonists to break away because they wanted to govern themselves and make up their own laws. God probably wanted them to rebel in a respectful matter, which the colonists did in some cases. I don’t think God wanted them to force tea down tax collectors throats. But all in all the colonists did have Christian rights. God created everyone equal and made us look like Him so we all have equal rights. If the British are free the colonists can be too.

AM-OSL

I don’t see how someone can have the legal right to overthrow a government because the government makes laws, so by rebelling against the government you are rebelling against the laws that government has made. Since not all of the colonists were Christians they could rebel without a Christian right to rebel. Even though I don’t think that they had a Christian right to rebel, they could anyway because Christian rights don’t matter to those people that aren’t Christian.

KR-SOTH

I think that the colonists did have the right to rebel. They were being unequally treated by the British. They got mucho taxes as the Britain’s got none or close to none. When the colonist’s found that out, they got upset with the British. The British started to add more laws and rules, so that the colonists had less freedom than the Britain’s. The laws that the British made were some stupid laws like the Townshend Act. I think that the way the British treated them they did have the right to rebel.

SL-SOTH

I think that the colonist did have the right to rebel. They had the right to rebel because the British were trying to shelter them from what they wanted to do. They were also being treated unjustly because the British abused they’re power by randomly barging in and stealing from the colonists. The colonists also had the Christian right to rebel because they wanted to be able to practice whatever religion they wanted.

CE-SOTH

I believe that they did not have the legal right, but they did have the Christian right. Britain ruled over them so I don’t think Britain would allow them to rebel against them. There was probably not a law that said “you may not rebel against Britain” but I think the king would not allow it anyway. I believe that they had the Christian right, because they were standing up for what they believed in and not just letting Britain boss them around. The British were treating them unfairly and the Americans did not like it so they sent petitions to the king to say “stop” but the King didn’t stop so they rebelled. I believe that God would say that if you are getting treated unfairly, that you have the right to say “let us free” Like the Israelites in Egypt who were treated unfairly, Moses said "let us free" and the Israelites rebelled and gained freedom.

AA-OSL

I think that they had no legal rights because even though they were being taxed they were still not being taxed as much as Britain. I do believe that they had a religious right because in the bible they had countless times that they had wars and God would even lead them into it.

WH-OSL

I think that the colonist did have the right and the Christian right to rebel against the British because the British invaded their space, didn’t give them any say in the problem or try to reason with them over the problems that they were faced with. The Christian side is that they were having to do things against their will. In the fourth commandment it said to honor your father and mother, and other authorities. But the only way they could disobey this commandment is when your authority is making you do something you know is wrong or doesn’t make you feel comfortable, and in this case the colonist had the right to all these things.

AK-OSL

I believe that the colonists did have the legal and Christian right to rebel. I believe this because the British were applying many unnecessary taxes on the colonists. The British were ruling unjustly and the colonists were being bossed around in unnecessary ways. I do believe that the colonists had the right to rebel and become independent.

MR-SOTH

I am not sure right now if we had the right to rebel or not. I know that Great Brittan was not fair with the colonists, nor were they good leaders. On the other hand, as Christians we are told not to return evil for evil. Though, I know that if I was being treated like the colonists were by the British, than I would definitely want to rebel. I think that as long as the rebelling did not lead to vandalism or death, than it would be ok. Obviously, the British would not stop treating the colonists as they did unless the colonists did something about it. So, in conclusion, I think that it was necessary for the colonists to rebel. If they did not rebel, they would have probably not have made as much progress in their independence as we see today. As Christians though, it probably was not the best thing to do.

JD-SOTH

I think they didn’t have a legal right to rebel against Great Britain because there was no point of rebelling because in the new land (the colonies), they still didn’t have to pay for as many things as the people in Britain. Plus the taxes in Great Britain were more there then they were in the colonies. So even if they went back to Britain they would have to pay more. They didn't have a Christian right to rebel agaist Britain because they came from britain for a new place to live. But that didnt mean they could get away. Plus God said all people are made equal and perfect in his sight.

SM-OSL

I think the colonists had and didn’t have the right to rebel against the British, because the British did have the right to place some of the taxes on the colonists. Like: the Stamp Act, Tea Act, Sugar Act, Townshend Act and the Intolerable Acts. They had the right to do these things because they needed money to got out of debt from the expenses of the war and the British didn’t have the right to place the acts of: the Quartering Act, and the Writs of Assistance. These two acts were totally invading the private area and homes the colonists. It wasn’t the colonists’ job to take care of the British soldiers and give them food. It should’ve been the government’s job. Also with the Writs of Assistance, the British totally took advantage of the search warrant; it wasn’t very Christian like of them to do this.

I think there are many ways that you can answer this question, and there are lots of perspectives. I think the colonists did and did NOT have the right to do some of the stuff they rebelled against.

AR-SOTH

I think the colonies felt that the social contract had been broken but I believe they just wanted to be a free country. Of course we don’t know when exactly the social contract has been broken. I feel like the social contract had been broken or was about to be broken. The colonies just were not used to having taxes and they didn’t think is was far when they paid taxes but England didn’t. The acts that I thought the Britain went to far was the Quartering Act, and the Intolerable Act. This went over the line because having a soldier live with your family and hear everything you were saying. The Intolerable also because yes I think that Boston should pay the money back, but how if the Boston’s harbor is the money maker than there is no way to pay the money back. I also think the British shouldn’t taken away their government meetings.

KO-SOTH

When first presented with this question, my immediate answer was yes, the Colonists did have the legal and the Christian right to rebel. But after thinking for a while, I came to find that this question could not be so simply answered. Did the British government really break the Social Contract, as suggested in the Declaration of Independence, or were they merely just trying to run their colonies in a way that they thought fit?

I believe that at first, the Colonists did not have the legal or the Christian right to rebel. The British government had set out laws for them to obey, and though the laws might have been different from what was required of the people in Britain, it also needs to be understood that the Colonists lived in much different conditions from the British. Therefore, it was their legal duty, according to the Social Contract, to follow the laws and respect the government.

In Luther’s Small Catechism, under the Table of Duties, it clearly states that we as Christians are required to submit to the government and follow the laws that they have set out for us. It also states in the 4th Commandment that we are to “Honor our Father and Mother,” which also includes those who are in authority over us that are acting in our best interest. The key words here though are “acting in our __best__ interest.”

When the British started to impose laws on the Colonists that were not acting in their best interest, but rather the British’s best interest, such as the Quartering Act, the Intolerable Acts, and the authorization of Writs of Assistance, I believe that the Colonists now had the legal and Christian right to rebel. Up until these laws were passed, the British had not passed any laws that were clearly not acting in the Colonists’ best interests. Yes, some of the laws may have been annoying to the Colonists, but up until their personal space and property was invaded, I do not believe that they had the right to rebel. As time progressed however, and the laws the British were passing continued to become more and more obscene, then I believe that the Colonists did have the legal and Christian right to rebel.

EK-SOTH

I think that they did have the right to rebel against British rule. I think that the British did not have the right to tax the colonies. They were already rich enough. The colonies had a great idea but they weren’t so Christian when they did it. They also had no say in the matter. They were nowhere near Great Britain but still were controlled by them. I personally think that is wrong. They did have the Christian right to rebel also. God was with them and guided them on their way to peace. They had the right because they knew that God had them protected and they believed that everything would turn out for the best.

EF-OSL

I think that the colonists did have the right to rebel from Great Britain. One of the Core Democratic Values is “Liberty”. Liberty is the right to personal, political, and economic freedom. This states that the colonists had the right to rebel in order to have political and some personal freedom. The reason, I think, that some people don’t think they did had the right to rebel was because of the way that they did it. It wouldn’t have been better if the colonists could have found a nicer way to rebel, but I believe that they did have the right.

I don’t think that God was very happy with the fact that people were fighting and being disrespectful to one another. I don’t think that the colonist should have rebelled so harshly. The 4th commandment says “Honor your father and your mother”. This means all authorities as well, and the colonist rebelling/fighting against the king, who is their authority, is not following this command. Yet God must have wanted them to rebel because it happened and God does everything for a purpose.

MB-OSL

I don't think colonists had the right to fight back because God had put the king on this earth to stop all controversy. Basically the colonists were disobeying God not the British because He made it that way for a purpose just like everything else. The colonists should have listen to the British and all they had to say to them or do to get a point across. The British were a little harsh just because the colonists had forced it on themselves by not paying their taxes or dumping the tea in the harbor. Really it was a little irresponsible of grown men to do something like that.

JS-OSL

Yes, I believe that the colonists had the legal and Christian right to break away from Great Britain be cause the King started to get power greedy because he was getting near double the amount of money than he would usually get with America under his control. So he started taxing the colonists unfairly and doing a lot of other things such as letting his soldiers check houses without a valid reason thanks to the writs of assistance. I would also like to relate this to a similar story in the Bible. It was when the Pharaoh had the Israelites as his slaves in a way. He was treating them unfairly and so God commanded Moses to lead the Israelites to break away from the Pharaoh. With America, it’s kind of the same, except God didn’t command anyone to break away from Britain, even though I think it was their right.

JS-SOTH

I think the colonists had legal and Christian right to rebel because of the unfair treatment from the British. The British were not showing any courtesy or kindness toward them, and only wanted utmost power over the people that lived there. The Christians had only had the support of each other. The British government was unfair and unworthy of establishing their government and their unfustified rules without the consent of the people. They taxed the people for the sake of their own uses, not to promote the growth and prosperity of the people from which they took the taxes. I feel that they had a reason to refuse this repulsive treatment. God gave us the right of freedom; whether of speech, religion, or any other type of religion. He gave us the right to use it to protect ourselves, and this case was a sensible time to use it.

BH-SOTH

The colonist did have the legal right to rebel against Great Brittan’s rule because they felt like they were just an extension of great Brittan and were not feeling like they were apart of Brittan. And they did not like being taxed so heavily. They also did not like being taxed without representation. They did not rebel in a very Christian’s manner a more Christianly manner would be to speak to the British instead of torturing the taxes collectors by poring tar and feathers on them. And not by starting fight with the loyalist. And if they were treated equally then they would not have rebelled.

CK-OSL

Yes they did ** have the legal and Christian right to rebel because the British parliament had made very unfair taxes for the colonists such as the rites of assistants witch let the British solders go in to the colonists homes and take what ever they wanted. When they were suppose to be getting smuggled goods and that broke the social contract **
 * JB-SOTH **