Anarchy or tyranny?

I’m not a lawyer, but…

Some political philosphers believe non-violent civil disobedience is a right of citizens in a free society. By right, it means that the person protesting accepts the possibility of arrest, fine, or other penalty, while the government assures that any penalties are proprotional to the actual damage and are not abusive or extreme. That is, extra penalties are not to be levied solely for the purpose of squelching protest, but those protesting are not above existing laws merely because they are protesting.

Personally, I'm strongly against civil disobedience. I think it tends to get out of control too quickly, the message gets lost, and even non-violent civil disobedience can hurt innocent people.

I also feel that, while government authorities must submit to higher government authorities, they have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. This is complicated in non-military cases, since it could be argued that in civilian cases the refusal to implement illegal orders either requires or entails resignation of authority (except where that resignation puts citizens in immediate jeopardy).

In the case of a judge disobeying the order of a higher authority, it becomes a little more complicated. Is it a case of civil disobedience, refusal to obey an illegal order, dereliction of duty, insubordination, or violation of oath of office? What I hear Judge Moore saying is that he feels that removing the monument is a violation of his oath of office, so this makes his decision more like a case of disobeying a conflicting or illegal order. I suppose the opposing view is that this is a case of dereliction or insubordination; civil disobedience being impossible since he is acting as an agent of the state.

I wish this had been happening when I was taking civics class in high school – it would have made for interesting class discussions and role-playing!

-Neil

 

I did some more reading and thinking about what various Christian philosophers and theologians have had to say about submission to authority vs. civil disobedience, etc. I have to admit I’m internally conflicted with regards to the Judge Moore thing.

On the one hand, I believe it’s the clear intent of the framers of our constitution that government should not promote a specific religion. On the other hand, I think they expected citizens and officials to make their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) an important part of their private and civic lives.

As a Christian, I am bound to obey the state, except where it directly challenges God’s authority. With respect to the decalogue, for me that means that I must resist if the government orders me to disobey what I see as God’s commandment. It doesn’t mean that I can disobey when I am ordered to “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.” To me, the lobby in question is clearly “Ceasar’s” property, so if “Ceasar” wants the stone to go, it must go (in our case “Ceasar” is the democratic rule of law).

So resisting the removal of the decalogue in this case is a matter of civil conscience, not Christian conscience. Civilly, a good case can be made that this is a sectarian display in a way that other civial expressions of Judeo-Christian heritage are not. It’s also not simply a case of majority rule. The framers of the constitution and bill of rights were constantly mindful of the need to protect the majority from the minority.

However, I do think that those who would totally exclude religion from public life often go too far. For example, I’m in favor of letting religious clubs use public property for meetings, etc. – provided no discrimination occurs (i.e. if Christians are allowed, so are Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and even atheists).

-Neil

 

I find myself conficted on this as well. My thoughts are that the courthouse is on state property. I firmly believe in the doctrine of the separation of church and state, as I would not want the words of Budda, or Muhammad on the courthouse either. On the other hand I truly admire Judge Moore, and the stand he has taken - even though I dont agree with him on this issue.

I firmly believe in the concept of civil disobedience. I think that African Americans accomplished much through their civil disobedience, and even though he had moral failings Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was used by God. I also believe firmly that those who demonstrate at abortion clinics are absolutley justified to do so, have even done it myself. I also applaud those that boycott food makers, theme parks etc who sponsor or endorse programs that the boycotters disagree with.

Isnt America GREAT - can you imagine someone in China attempting to engage in civil disobedience?

 

Talk about bad information. If America really was founded on Jesus Christ, then the least we could see is specific language in the Constitution saying so. It is not about their being anti-Christian - they just didn't want a religiously-based government.

 

>>>>>I say tyranny is the alternative to anarchy. Which one do you think is worst?<<<<<<<<

I don't think we have tyranny or anarchy at the present time. I think things are just about right. This country is a long way, a very long way from a situation in which individual rights are violated. There is religious freedom, in abundance. Those who scream about the alleged tyranny of federal power are way off base. This country has just the right balance of government power and individual freedom. It was an experiment to determine whether a government with enough power to protect itself and its people would be perhaps too strong for individual liberty to thrive. I think the situation is just right. We have stability and security and freedom. You complainers should stop complaining and help preserve what we have - rather than promote radical changes.

 

Saying this over and over again doesn't make your argument more persuasive.