How can anyone argue against such justifications for use of force?
They can't, because the abuser is beyond reason.
I posted a thread on the problems of epistemic autonomy here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=105794
You are most welcome to participate.
The crux is that there seems to be no reason to either subject or refuse to subject oneself to another's intelligence, but also to another's will.
For example, a rapist can argue that he has done no wrong - and on the grounds of what can we really disagree with him? At most, our disagreement will be merely provisional and circumstantial (ie. by reference to social norms that it is wrong to rape); but unless we have direct knowledge of absolute morality and the source of this absolute morality being on our side as well, we cannot really stand in our disagreement with him.
I am not so sure about that. There are many references on how the spiritual master can do nothing wrong, for example.
Where?
Look at the Guruvastakam, for example.
It is a description of someone who is considered to be beyond doing anything wrong.
That is not my memory of the events. I vividly remember how some American Christians protested in the streets, claiming that GW Bush should not call himself a Christian and that he is misrepresenting Christianity.
Bush claim GOD told him to go to war. From what you say, these protests were about disasociating him from christianity.
Yes, they were.
I'm not sure what your emphasis is here, though? That people generally take for granted that it was indeed God who told GWB to go to war - ie. that people believe that God does such things as telling the presidents of big countries to invade other countries?
(Although such is fully in the scope of the God of the Old Testament.)
When I see a religious person do something that is generally considered wrong, I am bewildered, and try to find a way to explain why it is not wrong if a religious person does something that would otherwise be considered wrong. If I don't find such an explanation, I feel guilty.
Can you specifically link this type of thinking to any scriptoral injunction?
Matt. 7.5: You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Matt. 7.3: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
John 8.7: Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.
Matt. 7.1-2: Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Then there are well-known instructions not to criticize others and how the fault lies within - e.g.
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hare-krishna-forum/15965-fault-lies-within.html
Were the people who protested the Holy Inquisition not wrong to do so? Or the people who refused to instantly admit what they were accused of?
I've no idea.
Anyway, what does it matter, now?
I just gave a well-known historic example to make my point.
Similar is happening every day in congregations, albeit usually on a much lesser scale. For example, a member of the congregation accuses someone of something. Is the other person wrong for not instantly admitting to what they are being accused of?
For example, a theist once accused me of something which I thought was not true. I defended myself, to which he replied that I am accusing him of lying - that not only have I committed what he is accusing me of, but that I am now also blaspheming him for accusing him of lying.
Sure. But how do you know that such practices are not in line with what a true servant of God would do?
Did Jesus ever say to his disciples their stupid for not believing what he believes|?
I would not dare to make judgments on what Jesus said or meant.
For me, religion/spirituality has always been about anxiously walking a tightrope between making an effort not to offend the theists and maintaining some semblance of sanity.
Then it maybe time to rethink your definition of religion/spirituality.
Rethink it into what?
What else could there be?
To me, most interactions with theists are such that no matter what I would do, I would be wrong and lose.
What type of people would you be right and win, through interaction?
I don't know. Perhaps there are no such people.
Maybe, but I doubt it.
I don't have time to play footsie, if i'm wrong i'm wrong, but I trust my instinct, and am not too proud to accept if i'm wrong.
Good for you then.
I suppose I am just not humble enough to accept that I might have to spend several million kalpas an hell for offending a theist.