I tend to agree with you... On Nov 28, 2009, at 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin > Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that > perpetuated white supremacy -- with the understanding that they would face > punishment for their actions. But such civil disobedience is rightly regarded > as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in > legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution.
Of course, back then LOTS of people condemned MLK Jr for doing so. I find it ironic how many people condemn today's activists for bringing religion into civil rights issues... > Never mind that advocates of same-sex civil marriage and legal abortion have > made significant concessions to believers or that religious groups have > recourse to courts, which have aggressively protected the free exercise of > religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment Yeah, right. :-/ http://www.persecutionblog.com/2009/11/valedictorians-case-dismissed.html I agree that we don't live under wholesale atheism, but neither did the declaration seem to be calling for anarchy. It seemed profoundly humble and sincere. > Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their > endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion > terrorists they claim to condemn? Did the LA Times bother to consider that demonizing Christians for the views they hold inspires further acts of vandalism and persecution? http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/479857.aspx Yes, civil disobedience must be done in great humility with a clear understanding of and willingness to accept the cost. But that seems exactly what they are doing. -- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
