Most people talk about the importance of being law abiding, but it seems that that devotion to law disappears for many people when it comes to an area that they feel strongly about. The same also happens when it comes to a law that people consider to be unimportant. For instance, in pretty much any place I've driven, if you're not doing at least 5 mph over the speed limit, you're blocking traffic because pretty much everyone is speeding. They introduced a law in Colorado a few years ago that you should stay out of the left lane unless you're passing on roads where the speed limit is 65 or over. Most people ignore that law. Remember when Mayor Gavin Newsome in San Francisco decided to ignore the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples? I know some otherwise law abiding folks who were very supportive of his action. In the church, they continued the practice of polygamy, even though it was illegal, until the Lord told them to stop. So, it seems that most people believe in civil disobedience in one way or another. What are your thoughts? Is civil disobedience always bad? Sometimes bad, sometimes good? Always good?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
My thought on civil disobedience is that it's okay...*IF* you feel strongly enough about the law you're disregarding that you're willing to pay the penalty.
If you think the speed limit is too low and drive faster...be willing to pay the fines when you're ticketed. And no whining. If you find a law unjust, you have to be willing to do the jail time while you're appealing and fighting the system. And no whining.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s letter from Birmingham jail is probably one of the best tratises on civil disobedience I have read. I used to disagree with civil disobedience until I read that. He wrote something along the lines that it is only proper in disobeying that you willingly accept the penalty (jail time, criminal charges,etc.) to demonstarte the injustice or absurdity of the law at stake. Anyway, it is a good read and I refer to it instead of my own limited ability to explain!
I have no problem with civil dissobedience unless it infringes on the rights of others or causes damage to their person or property. Throwing paint on someone's fur coat while yelling "Fur is murder" or burning their car because you are not happy with a court decision is just wrong. If you want to chain yourself to the steps of city hall then go for it.
Are there any reasons to consider engaging in civil disobedience except in cases where the law in question or an act of government is clearly immoral, or in the case of American citizens, where such is a violation of the U.S. Constitution?
A couple of instances in which a few LDSs have engaged in civil disobedience:
Some of you may know the story of Helmut Hübner, the LDS boy who promoted opposition to Hitler in WW2 Germany and was executed. He was excommunicated for reasons unclear to me, and rebaptized posthumously. As I recall, a second LDS boy was also involved and punished but not executed.
A few LDSs I know of have refused to pay federal income tax, claiming correctly IMO that the income tax is illegal. I recall that at least on General Authority advised publicly that LDSs comply with the income tax law.
Draft dodging is another form of civil disobedience.
arbilad wrote:In the church, they continued the practice of polygamy, even though it was illegal, until the Lord told them to stop. So, it seems that most people believe in civil disobedience in one way or another. What are your thoughts? Is civil disobedience always bad? Sometimes bad, sometimes good? Always good?
Civil disobedience is sometimes good. Obedience to the law of the land is not absolute.
In defense of the church members and polygamy, for much of the time that they were disobeying the polygamy laws, those laws were under the judicial review process (although they did disobey the laws, for a time, even after that process was complete).
Basically, the church members had been taught, irrefutably, that polygamous marriage was required for exaltation. It would be a similar situation if the federal government made a law today that LDS temple marriages were against the law.
Under what circumstances might disobedience to a law of the land at this point in time be acceptable to the Lord?
How about a law that infringes one's ability to protect one's self or others from physical attack? Or threat thereof? Or one's ability to prevent theft of property? Or one's right to express an opinion (not to be confused with slander or defamation of character)?
Yep but it's pretty hard to argue with someone in mortality exercising civil disobedience over the second amendment.
Indeed. Or even someone not exercising civil disobedience.
I did not mean to say that the 2nd Ammendment is not important. I just meant to say that (IMHO), it is not nearly as important to God as some might believe.
D&C 134:5 "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. "
If the government protects your rights, then sedition and rebellion are "unbecoming". So, does that mean the converse is true? If your are not protected in your rights, is sedition and rebellion "becoming"? I think the next line (and other parts of the section) clarify that those inherit and inalienable rights are the freedom of conscience. If the government ever tried to tell you how to think on moral and religious issues, then you can fight against that.
Those inherent and inalienable rights include the "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." Anybody see any current or ongoing violations of these rights?
Well... they like to tell us what kind of fences we can put up around our houses... how many and the size of sheds we can have out back.... stuff like that comes to mind...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
Most infringements of rights that I note occurr by:
1.) Government using my tax money for welfare and foreign aid, which are unconstitutional
2.) Laws that would punish a person for injuring or killing another in the course of defending him/herself against death, physical injury, and theft of property
3.) Laws that muzzle expression of our opinions
4.) Laws that prevent acuisition of certain medications, medical treatments, and use of certain natural and homeopathic remedies
"and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."
This line gives governments broad latititude in what laws they can enact. Christ never advocated rising up against Rome, even though they had pretty heinous laws and justice. "Sacred freedom of conscience" is the inalienable right that is most important. Zoning laws don't fall into that.
