Does Labour condone violence for justice?

I'm meaning in the abstract sense of aspirations for the economic realization of the masses. Realizations for a true work of learning new Ethics, are substantially conceived for the self; value is Self and the self represents in all walks of life for the common concern of social justice.

That priority allows for making the politics more important than religion at peace and prosperity. Thus the abstract judgment has, not as much the end justifying the means (this is the important issue), but the trusting the end of the cause for the changing society in spite of the greater judgments made by the so-called History judging clause. Thus what history judges is open to interpretation. Is this consistent with the attitude that people don't often know what they want.

Any remarks or comments upon the socialist agenda by the teleology of uncertain religious values?:2thumbsup:

 

Labor has condoned violence when egregious acts by those that employ labor wish labor would shut up and take what's given. Blood has been shed---but in REACTION only. it may be again. Not getting into the religious ramifications of following what seems to be a call for equity. Too much other crap in there.

 

But yes---and labor needs to remember the early part of last century as a guide to this one. Like the dogs of war--"they will take---and you will give."

 

Controversial eh? But the matter of civil disobedience can be meaningful for reference to the justice system. The justice system needs to have protection for the common citizen and the uninvolved. That will change in due course outside the system in the values of living consequences. Shouldn't REACTION be somewhat understood for the future of how people think of their religion for It? Oh well. I'm losing it.:biker: