[jfahler03]

Any thoughts on when it is warranted, when it is required, and when it shouldn't happen? Especially with the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, I think it will take more of an active role in our lives... do you agree?

[Qingu]

I think it's more pointless now than before. With the internet you can make your voice heard anywhere in the world. I would (and am) rather move to another country and protest there, safely, than stay here and get thrown in jail. Perhaps I wouldn't make as much of a wave from Canada but on the other hand my tax dollars won't be going to a government I don't support, so I say it balances out.

That said, if somehow there's a draft before a move and they pick me, I'm going to go. Yes, I would feel horrible about fighting in the war, but I figure that if I draft-dodge, they're just going to draft someone less educated with less means than I have, and he is probably going to end up killing more innocent people than I would.

[Ridley's Own]

Fundamentally, civil disobediance is useful when solving unjust laws, ie., segregation. MLK didn't break jaywalking laws because laws against jaywalking don't have a moral or immoral character. Segregation laws, laws specifically designed to treat one race differently than another, do have an immoral character and should be broken to change.

Contrast that with some anti-war movement people do: march to a military base, and cross the "yellow line" and trespass on federal property. What is the point in breaking tresspassing laws if you're trying to make a moral claim against a war? Don't pay immoral taxes that support an immoral war if that's the way you feel about it. But "civil disobedience" as it is currently practiced is foolish, wearying to law enforcement officers who have to deal with the disobedient, and, end the end, a cowardly way to deal with problems.

[+Donny]

Quick question I was wondering about not long ago: Why is MLK's disobedience considered legitimate just because the law itself was immoral, as he was not being forced to do anything wrong? That one has always confused me.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Quick question I was wondering about not long ago: Why is MLK's disobedience considered legitimate just because the law itself was immoral, as he was not being forced to do anything wrong? That one has always confused me.

Read Letter from the Birmingham Jail to get some insight on this.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Stu...irmingham.html

Another good discussion: Crito by Plato: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

I think what we need to decide is what to follow: the moral good, or the civil law. In an ideal society, the civil law displays the moral good in its workings; however we already know that this isn't always true.

But to what extent can this be taken? I agree with Ridley's Own: for example, staging protests which disrupt local economies in order to protest against a world economy seems quite foolish to me (like what happened in the WTO protests in Seattle).

Originally Posted by +Donny

as he was not being forced to do anything wrong?

You seem confused here. Are you stating that MLK had no right to break the law because he was not forced by that law to act immoraly? What if the laws themselves were immoral? What I'm getting at is that while he was not forced to act immorally, the laws were immoral against him as a human being. With his, Thoreau's, and Plato's logic he has not only the right to disobey but the responsibility.

[+Donny]

I am not saying anything; I'm just throwing out questions.

Can such a position be justified scripturally? Even when acting immorally, civil leaders are to be obeyed, are they not?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Even when acting immorally, civil leaders are to be obeyed, are they not?

George Wallace wasn't just acting immorally; the law itself was immoral since it created a distinction between people based solely on race. By continuing to follow immoral laws, we contribute to that immorality.

[guitarczar]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I am not saying anything; I'm just throwing out questions.

Can such a position be justified scripturally? Even when acting immorally, civil leaders are to be obeyed, are they not?

Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than man."

In such a case of an immoral law, Christians are not required to follow it. They are required to follow an immoral leader if he isn't making immoral laws, just unfair laws.

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

Sometimes people get confused about immoral(unjust) laws and unfair laws. An immoral law would violate God's eternal laws, while an unfair law is a law that people don't like out of personal preferences.

This is somewhat taken from Thomas Acquinas's view.
Ideas of the Great Philosophers, pg. 65-68
NASB Bible

[+Donny]

George Wallace wasn't just acting immorally; the law itself was immoral since it created a distinction between people based solely on race. By continuing to follow immoral laws, we contribute to that immorality.

How does the persecuted person submitting to the laws contribute to the immorality? I can understand a police officer or bus driver enforcing it, but as far as submitting to such laws, I'm not following the logic here.

And how does this square with the Church's interaction with the Roman Empire?

[Epaphras]

I think the principle we learn from Daniel, Ruth, the early Church, etc. is invaluable here: civil disobedience is permissable and even necessary when the authority makes a commandment of God (i.e. witnessing, gathering together, worshiping, etc) illegal AND/OR commands something sinful (i.e. emperor worship, bowing to idols, etc.) which upon refusal is punishable.

Now as far as the civil rights movement is concerned, I haven't studied it in-depth to determine if segregation laws, etc. were immoral or simply unfair. I do believe there is a difference.

_Epaphras

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

How does the persecuted person submitting to the laws contribute to the immorality?

The same way Christ said "Those who are not against me are for me." When we stand unopposed to injustice going on in our name (since, as we are in a functioning democracy, it is a government responsible to us), then we are allowing injustice to continue.

And how does this square with the Church's interaction with the Roman Empire?

I don't follow the question. They were asked to worship emperors; they declined and were killed. It squares perfectly.

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Now as far as the civil rights movement is concerned, I haven't studied it in-depth to determine if segregation laws, etc. were immoral or simply unfair.

Dr. King argued (and I concur), that whenever unfairness reaches a point where one group is treated as subhuman or in a degrading manner, then it becomes immoral and not merely unfair.

[+Donny]

Okay, I guess where I am having trouble is with the comparison between commiting idolatry and sitting in a segregated area of a bus (to bring up a popular example). The former is sinful because it is in direct violation of God's command; now, how is the second like this?
It seems the argument would go that in the second, you are implicitly giving moral support to the injustice, but how is this so? Why doesn't this apply to taxes as well? Does it apply to every law that is immoral? I just don't see how this could be stopped before collapsing into an all-out, disobey-everything-that-smells-funny sort of approach. Not to say that we shouldn't oppose such laws, but that our opposition should be legal, no?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

The former is sinful because it is in direct violation of God's command; now, how is the second like this?

Because it violates the principle that "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female," and the actions of our Lord in the Gospels and his relationships with people who were beyond the fringe. And the book of James. Treating people differently because of external matters is not a thing the Bible is silent on or condones or is indifferent to.

It seems the argument would go that in the second, you are implicitly giving moral support to the injustice, but how is this so?

Because you're not stopping it.

Why doesn't this apply to taxes as well?

It does. Thoreau was thrown in jail because he refused to pay taxes to support the Mexican War in 1840-something. Ghandi refused to buy English-made salt and made his own.

Does it apply to every law that is immoral?

It depends on who you talk to. I think resistance to institutionalized injustice is necessary. It just depends on what kind of resistance is warranted. Example: I don't think withholding taxes because of my resistance to the Iraq war is a good idea; my money also goes to support things that I believe are just (like WIC, education, foreign aid, etc). I can't consciously withold money from things that I do support because of the war.

But, when the cause demands it, I think it is a good tactic. Example: Ghandi wanted to show that the Indians could produce their own needs without the British Empire. So, he started a boycott of English fabric and began making his own. The flipside of that is that the Manchester mills that were producing the cloth were relying on the Indian monopoly to stay in business. Does Ghandi start a boycott that shows Indian independance or start a boycott that costs people jobs and livelihoods. Not something he struggled with lightly.

I just don't see how this could be stopped before collapsing into an all-out, disobey-everything-that-smells-funny sort of approach. Not to say that we shouldn't oppose such laws, but that our opposition should be legal, no?

To the extent that the law allows opposition, yes. King tried to work within the courts, and did so with success. But when it came time to enforce the new laws, the southern states' governments refused to do so. So what does he do then? Likewise with Bonhoeffer. Could Bonhoeffer have legally opposed the Nazi gov't?

And it's important to remember my first post: civil disobedience breaks the unjust law, the law that needs fixing. Throwing a newstand through a Starbucks window and calling it "civil disobedience" instead of criminal mischief isn't the civil disobedience that Ghandi and King and the N.I. Civil Rights movement endorsed.

You should read the Letter From a B'Ham Jail. It explains the theory of civil disobedience very well. Bishop Carpenter (whom King alludes to in the letter) was the Episcopal Bishop of Alabama at the time. His son is a priest in B'Ham and has a copy of the letter Bp. Carpenter and the other clergymen wrote to King. Fr. Carpenter also married Courntney Cox and David Arquette, IIRC.

[+Donny]

Because it violates the principle that "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female," and the actions of our Lord in the Gospels and his relationships with people who were beyond the fringe. And the book of James. Treating people differently because of external matters is not a thing the Bible is silent on or condones or is indifferent to.

No, I mean in the case of idolatry, obeying the law is inherently sinful. It is not just the law itself that is immoral, but commiting idolatry itseslf is sinful. A segregated bus is sinful; sitting in a section entitled "colored" is not inherently sinful. There is a disconnect between the two.

Because you're not stopping it.

Define "stopping it". If you mean, "trying to stop it", yes, you can be trying to stop it legally. Just because you aren't illegally resisting doesn't mean you aren't resisting.

It does. Thoreau was thrown in jail because he refused to pay taxes to support the Mexican War in 1840-something. Ghandi refused to buy English-made salt and made his own.

So why pay taxes to the Romans?

To the extent that the law allows opposition, yes. King tried to work within the courts, and did so with success. But when it came time to enforce the new laws, the southern states' governments refused to do so. So what does he do then? Likewise with Bonhoeffer. Could Bonhoeffer have legally opposed the Nazi gov't?

I think there may be a difference between institutionalized murder and immoral segregation. In the former, you could argue from self-defense. In cases where segregation is life-threatening, resistance seems legitimate in some forms, but why would it be if it means using a lower-quality restroom, water fountain, or sitting in the back of a bus?

BTW, I do not mean to belittle the actions of those who resisted segregation, nor the horrors they had to go through. The way they were treated is obviously terrible. I am only throwing out some questions surrounding the biblical legitimacy of illegal resistance to non-life threatening segregation.

And it's important to remember my first post: civil disobedience breaks the unjust law, the law that needs fixing. Throwing a newstand through a Starbucks window and calling it "civil disobedience" instead of criminal mischief isn't the civil disobedience that Ghandi and King and the N.I. Civil Rights movement endorsed.

Okay, definitely true, and I don't mean to unite the two.

You should read the Letter From a B'Ham Jail. It explains the theory of civil disobedience very well. Bishop Carpenter (whom King alludes to in the letter) was the Episcopal Bishop of Alabama at the time. His son is a priest in B'Ham and has a copy of the letter Bp. Carpenter and the other clergymen wrote to King. Fr. Carpenter also married Courntney Cox and David Arquette, IIRC.

You know where I can get it?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by +Donny

No, I mean in the case of idolatry, obeying the law is inherently sinful. It is not just the law itself that is immoral, but commiting idolatry itseslf is sinful. A segregated bus is sinful; sitting in a section entitled "colored" is not inherently sinful. There is a disconnect between the two.

I don't see the disconnect. If you follow a sinful law, even if your isolated action is not sinful in and of itself, you're still giving it a stamp of approval. You're saying, "It's OK by me."

Define "stopping it". If you mean, "trying to stop it", yes, you can be trying to stop it legally. Just because you aren't illegally resisting doesn't mean you aren't resisting.

Agreed, and I often wonder about the contributions made during civil rights struggles or nonviolent movements by people in legislatures, judges, etc. But again, when I say "break the law to change it," I mean break the immoral law, not any law you can get your hands on.

So why pay taxes to the Romans?

Beats me. Perhaps the Imperial regime hadn't gotten to that extreme of a point yet, though it's an interesting case study. Our taxes support our own repressive occupation. What do we do?

I think in its context, the Pharisees were trying to get Jesus, not asking about the specifics of civil disobedience and peaceful resistance, so I'm not sure this applicable. I think witholding taxes is pretty much a case of last resort.

I think there may be a difference between institutionalized murder and immoral segregation. In the former, you could argue from self-defense. In cases where segregation is life-threatening, resistance seems legitimate in some forms, but why would it be if it means using a lower-quality restroom, water fountain, or sitting in the back of a bus?

As Herman Goering pointed out at the Nuremburg trials, the anti-Semitic laws in Germany that led to the Holocaust and the segregation laws in the U.S. were only a matter of degree. I think this is addressed by Dr. King in "A Letter," which is found on post 5 on this thread.

Basically, the argument was that segregation was not only illegal (in the sense that "seperate but equal" was never going to be "equal), but that the inherent inequality made blacks in the south subject to inhuman degredation, that they really were not equal on a human level. That they were somehow less than human.

BTW, I do not mean to belittle the actions of those who resisted segregation, nor the horrors they had to go through. The way they were treated is obviously terrible. I am only throwing out some questions surrounding the biblical legitimacy of illegal resistance to non-life threatening segregation.

Well, they're good questions, and I think it's good they're being asked. We have a tendancy to be completely unquestioning about the way the Civil Rights movement accomplished its goals. It's my opinion that it was in the best tradition of Christian resistance, and serves as a fairly good model.