Posted on 11/28/2009 10:24:29 AM PST by Steelfish
EDITORIAL Christian Leaders' Stance On Civil Disobedience Is Dangerous Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders are going too far when they declare they will break laws on abortion and same-sex marriage.
November 28, 2009
Philosophers have argued for centuries over whether it is ever justifiable to break the law in the service of a higher cause. The question acquired a new complexity with the advent of societies such as the United States, in which laws were enacted by elected representatives and not decreed by a monarch or dictator.
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.
That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.
Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples:
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
It they are upset by the Christian leaders stance on civil disobedience they will really piss their pants when they hear the stance of many millions of the rest of us angry American patriots.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
DANGEROUS...
Rush is right to call these purveyors of socialism the "state owned media."
LA Times is simply following the libtard run DHS in considering Christians, the Manhattan Declaration, tea parties, etc. as “dangerous” right wing extremists, etc.
Anything really new here from the LA Times? No. Move along.
Another reason why the LA Times is losing money and circulation.
The hypocracy is stunning. I sometimes wonder if just ignoring leftist media would be the effective thing to do.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Does anyone think civil disobedience would have worked in Maoist China or even current China, Cuba, or Stalinist Russia?
I recall William F. Buckley once said civil disobedience requires a decent nation to work, or something like that.
Now, as for homosexual shacking up - I really don't give a rip if the government wants to recognize it or not. I do care about it being characterized as marriage, as the definition of the word's really really clear, no matter how many erasers the liberals take to the dictionary.
If the whole thing was ‘well, we wanna recognize these homosexuals who have forgone the promiscuous lifestyle and want to restrict their sexual contact to a single partner’, eh, no skin off my teeth. Since I want to cut, slash and burn all government employee benefits anyway, it's not a big deal to me.
The problem comes when the government wants to make the rest of us recognize this shacking up as being equal to marriage. Sorry, not within your powers as delineated by the US and state constitutions. Thought control’s just not spelled out anywhere. In fact, it's really explicitly enshrined in there that the government shall never try to impose it's will on the people, and further enshrines the people's ability to rebel should the nitwits try.
In many ways, the people have drawn the line in the sand on this issue, not because everyone really gives a rip if the homosexuals plan on pretending to be monogamous, but because along with it comes the full burden of thought control.
Even in California, one of the most liberal states in the country, the people have enshrined in their constitution that simple, time honored, dictionary definition, underlining it for the government as they apparently missed it the first hundred times.
Go ahead, cross that line. Mock all you want those who plan to simply not obey the thought control. Because honestly, if the First amendment doesn't work, it's going to fall to the second to get the job done. And while you're pondering this, dear liberals, you also might want to spend a half hour pondering the oathkeepers.org website, and wonder, just a little bit, how you intend on enforcing your will upon the rest of us.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
=========================================================
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS to sign the Declaration. ( This and PALIN, will ruin the Left's Christmas :)
One of the best things our religious leaders have done of late. Please support them.
Go to the website and Sign the Declaration. You must register if this is your first time.
God’s law is higher than man’s law and we choose this day Whom to serve.
Please, everyone sign the manahatten declaration. 180k and counting!
The people at LA Times just can’t wrap their minds around the idea that religious people would find abortion or gay marriage to be a moral wrong on the same level as racial discrimination.
ABSOLUTELY BenKenobi!...If ACORN was promoting this Declaration, they might have found One million signatures by now... Of course, from all those members residing in every CEMETERY as well as from our respectable "Prison Community" -- LOL
We should aim for one million signatures too by Christmas, by reaching to the DANGEROUS God fearing and conservative communities, and w/o cheating.
Done, it needs to be in the high millions tho. Maybe it will be eventually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.