Civil Disobedience Is Consistent With Christian Conduct

Interesting post, Sweetkitty.

I read an article yesterday about how James Dobson supports Judge Moore while another other evangelical (whose name I forget) are criticizing it as rebellion against government. Those same detractors, however, admitted that they supported the rebellion necessary to effect the American Revolution. I don't believe we should let things get that serious, mind you, but in this sense, I agree that there's a difference between backing your beliefs in government and utterly refusing to render to Ceasar (i.e. by paying one's taxes, which I suspect Judge Moore does dutifully).

sweetkitty said:

America's Founding Fathers and Christianity's church fathers repeatedly expressed the right of Christian citizens to refuse to submit to unjust laws.

Click to expand...

That's wonderful. Too bad the law is just in this case. How many judges' rulings will it take to convince you?

Civil disobedience does require breaking the law sometimes. As much as I disagree with him, and think he is an evil biggotted piece of doggie doo who does not deserve the job he carries or to share the world with real compassionate thinking humans...I do not hold him at fault for fighting for something he believes in. I would do the same.

Non-violent resistence to unjust laws and commands is very consistent with Christ's teachings.

Civil disobeidience would require him to step down and then fight the battle.

Until he does, he is just a judge who is ignoring the ruling of a superior court. Something he took an oath not to do. If he can't live up to the oath he took, he should step down. Public officials using their public powers do not represent civil disobedience, only individuals can exercise civil disobedience against the government.

By this definition, Wallace was simply participating in an act of civil disobedience when he stood at the school door and proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

If roe v wade is struck down and judges ignore the ruling, will you support them as they exercise their "civil disobedience"?

notto said:

Civil disobeidience would require him to step down and then fight the battle.

Until he does, he is just a judge who is ignoring the ruling of a superior court. Something he took an oath not to do. If he can't live up to the oath he took, he should step down. Public officials using their public powers do not represent civil disobedience, only individuals can exercise civil disobedience against the government.

By this definition, Wallace was simply participating in an act of civil disobedience when he stood at the school door and proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

If roe v wade is struck down and judges ignore the ruling, will you support them as they exercise their "civil disobedience"?

Click to expand...

Sometimes it takes a person of power to get noticed. When this is all over, he will have to step down from the bench, since he openly and intentionally defied the superior courts and the very constitution that he vowed to uphold, but until then, he should stay because it's his position on the court that gets this in the news.

lambslove said:

Sometimes it takes a person of power to get noticed. When this is all over, he will have to step down from the bench, since he openly and intentionally defied the superior courts and the very constitution that he vowed to uphold, but until then, he should stay because it's his position on the court that gets this in the news.

Click to expand...

I agree that ultimately, he'll have to step down and obey the legal system, however perverse... and I'm trying not to get my hopes up that he'll run for president in 2004.

Brother Christman said:

I agree that ultimately, he'll have to step down and obey the legal system, however perverse... and I'm trying not to get my hopes up that he'll run for president in 2004.

Click to expand...

Oh then, even I will agree that the apocalypse is near.

SqueezetheShaman said:

Oh then, even I will agree that the apocalypse is near.

Click to expand...

Touche, mon ami: I suspect we'll see the apocalypse before he's allowed to be elected.

By pushing this action through his powers as a government official, Moore is making the decision for ALL of Alabamba (who will be responsible for legal costs and fines as this moves forward). That is not civil disobedience by an individual, that is abuse of power.

Ten Commandments defiance doesn't meet civil disobedience test

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/26/findlaw.analysis.sebok.commandments/

First: Order doesn't single out minority for burdens

In his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King set out a complete theory of civil disobedience. It defined when a law was so unjust that it could not be obeyed. It also stated what a person's obligation was in the face of such a law.

For King, an unjust law had to be one that imposed on a disenfranchised minority burdens from which the majority was exempted -- such as the Jim Crow laws. Thus, for King, civil disobedience was not to be used every time a court or police officer made a mistake, but only when those mistakes of law oppressed a disenfranchised minority.

In the face of such a law, King first advocated the use of all possible means of rational persuasion. As a last resort, but only as a last resort, he said, nonviolent civil disobedience could ultimately be employed.

It seems unlikely that Moore sees the First Amendment or its establishment clause as an "unjust law" -- as opposed to a law that is being misinterpreted by the federal courts. But let's assume, for the purposes of argument, that King would have treated "unjust interpretations" as he did unjust laws.

Even so, Moore's action would not justify civil disobedience under King's test. No minority is being oppressed as a result of the removal of the statue.

Indeed, even if believers in the Ten Commandments were a minority in Alabama, they still would not be oppressed by the statue's removal. After all, the order did not mandate the statue's destruction; it made clear that the statue could constitutionally rest anywhere and send out its religious message anywhere, except on government property such as the courthouse, where it violated the establishment clause.

Second: A position of power, not vulnerability

King also stressed in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail" that the decision to break the law could not be taken lightly. Being right was not enough. Other conditions also had to be present.

For King, the situation for African-Americans who wished to challenge Jim Crow was intolerable. Not only were they effectively denied the vote (so that they could not vote to change the laws), they could not even organize and speak out to persuade others who could vote to change the laws.

For Moore to claim that his position today is anything like that of King's in 1963 is incredible. Let's state the obvious: Moore is one of the most privileged people in Alabama today. Not only is he privileged by his race and gender, but he is the highest judge in the state. Nothing stops him or his supporters from pressing their point of view.

And yet Moore did not even attempt to persuade his colleagues to accept the statue rationally. Instead, he resorted to trickery and brought the colossal object into the building secretly at 2 a.m. Perhaps this is why none of his fellow justices voted to support him.

Third: Moore's special status as a judge

Finally, in addition to these two important differences, I believe the biggest difference between Moore and King is that Moore is a judge. I think that judges, unlike the rest of us, have a special obligation to obey the law and to obey duly adjudicated interpretations of the law with which they disagree.

After all, if they disagree, they can always resign their positions. But while they are in their jobs, they are duty-bound -- and oath-bound -- to enforce the law. Civil disobedience by the police is plainly a disturbing instance of sheer lawlessness; civil disobedience by judges, in my view, is much the same.

notto said:

Civil disobeidience would require him to step down and then fight the battle.

Until he does, he is just a judge who is ignoring the ruling of a superior court. Something he took an oath not to do. If he can't live up to the oath he took, he should step down. Public officials using their public powers do not represent civil disobedience, only individuals can exercise civil disobedience against the government.

By this definition, Wallace was simply participating in an act of civil disobedience when he stood at the school door and proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

If roe v wade is struck down and judges ignore the ruling, will you support them as they exercise their "civil disobedience"?

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you that this is not an act of civil disobedience when he's acting as a judge. But I absolutely support him and his decisions regarding the stone with His laws engraved upon it.

You know, I just don't quite understand why it's got so many upset about it being there. The 10 Commandments are displayed publicly all over the U.S., so it's not about that...

...could it be He's moving and stirring the hearts of His people and blowing on the embers within them and kindling His Consuming Fire?

Hebrews 12:29 For our G-d is a consuming fire.

HisPlumMission said:

I have to agree with you that this is not an act of civil disobedience when he's acting as a judge. But I absolutely support him and his decisions regarding the stone with His laws engraved upon it.

You know, I just don't quite understand why it's got so many upset about it being there. The 10 Commandments are displayed publicly all over the U.S., so it's not about that...

...could it be He's moving and stirring the hearts of His people and blowing on the embers within them and kindling His Consuming Fire?

Hebrews 12:29 For our G-d is a consuming fire.

Click to expand...

Because he is a judge who is ignoring the rule of law and superior court rulings and refuses to obey the law while he appeals. Anyone who isn't upset over that has not weighed the consequences.

If the only sheriff in town is a cold blooded murderer, who is going to arrest him?

notto said:

Because he is a judge who is ignoring the rule of law and superior court rulings and refuses to obey the law while he appeals. Anyone who isn't upset over that has not weighed the consequences.

If the only sheriff in town is a cold blooded murderer, who is going to arrest him?

Click to expand...

I have weighed the consequences as I've pondered this in my heart. Please believe me I understand all too well your analogy--far better than you realize.

I still back the statue... but I'll grant that he could be hot-dog-ing to gain noteriety, too... which would be a despicable abuse of the faith.

I pray he's sincere.

I have to laugh at the idea of Judge Moore as exercizing civil disobedience... oh yes, he's such a noble man, willing to sacrifice the Alabama taxpayers' money for his beliefs!

I understand that they could not find a moving company in the state of Alabama who was willing to remove the monument and they had to go outside of the state. True?

Hey so much for your theory of taking it off government property it is still in the building just out of a high traffic area.