Religious attitudes towards self-defense, deadly and otherwise

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I'm looking for good sources that discuss religious attitudes
towards self-defense or defense of others, deadly and otherwise; in
particular, I'm looking to see whether there are religious groups that
(1) take the view that deadly force is always bad, even in self-defense
or defense of others, but nondeadly force (including pepper spray, stun
guns, and other devices that are extremely unlikely to kill) is
permissible, or (2) take the view that given the choice between
nondeadly force and deadly force, one should always use nondeadly force,
unless the nondeadly force is very likely to fail (e.g., all one has for
nondeadly force is fists vs. an attacker's knife).  
 
    The connection to the law of government and religion, as opposed to
just religious law, is a section on possible religious freedom
challenges in an article I'm writing about bans on tasers.  Some states
and cities ban tasers, but allow guns, so that people -- including those
who have religious objections to using deadly force -- are pressured
into either using guns or forgoing the ability to use any highly
effective defensive weapons.  Many thanks,
 
    Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090311/52bba141/attachment.htm