Rpe help

Hi, I'm a fellow GCSE student, so I hope this is right (and helpful):

- The question is asking you to write about religious viewpoints on violence via protesting - this means you should include discussions about whether Christianity, Buddhism, both or neither teach pacifist views and whether they would, despite their teachings, protest violently and why
- Within your answer, you need to discuss how this links to the question; if religious people (Christian or Buddhist) protested, would it be hypocritical/go against their religious beliefs to protest violently? For example, you might discuss how Christianity teaches to 'love thy neighbour as thyself' therefore, this could suggest violent protests go against the teachings of Jesus and God. However, you could then contrast this by talking about how violent protests may be seen as necessary in order to create change and help society as a whole - doing it for the greater good.
- In your introduction and conclusion, you may need to give your own opinion on this matter, e.g. 'I don't think it is wrong for religious people to protest violently because...', as well as discussing how other people (religious and not) may think

I hope this helps, and good luck

Thank you so so much this is really helpful!! I was given extended time as I missed the lesson where we did the work but this is so helpful thank you so much

When I taught this, I used key teaching from Christianity (and in the later lesson, Buddhism) alongside case studies so that students could marry up how one might protest peacefully in line with Christian or Buddhist principles, and what justifications there might be (if any) regarding non-peaceful protests.

So for Buddhists, the principle of ahimsa is crucial - ahimsa is usual translated as 'non-violence' but in reality it is better to translate it as 'non-injury' or 'non-harm'. Given the centrality of this teaching (it is one of the Five Precepts), Buddhists are usually expected to adhere to it. Obviously this would mean that any protests ought to be peaceful (I used ghosananda for the example of this - you can look him up)>

On the flipside, there is a principle in buddhist thought called upaya, and this translates as something like 'skill-in-means', or 'skilful means'. What this means is that an action can be 'skilful' even if, on the face of things, it seems to go against fundamental Buddhist teachings. The Dalai lama has talked about this in the past when he said that if someone was in front of you with a gun, and you believed that they were about to kill you, it can be reasonable (and so skilful) to shoot them first. Obviously, this contradicts ahimsa, but it can be acceptable according to upaya. It is not too far a step to say that it might be justifiable and so skilful to engage in violent protest, if, for example, the state is attacking a peaceful protest with violence. This would be an example of upaya.

I hope that this is of some use to you.