[PeterPrinciple]

I post this as a start of a discussion. Searching the Internet, there is very little current information, especially from a conservative position. It is a philosophy and requires some THINKING which most here don't want to be bothered with. "Drive by" posting seems to be the norm most times.

BUT, we are rapidly coming to the point where we are going to have to take a stand or submit. I think it is time we understand the rules, history, consequences and philosophy of civil disobedience. Maybe I am alone in this.

[PeterPrinciple]

Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society’s moral parameters. The Boston Tea Party, the suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi, the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and others, the resistance to apartheid in South Africa, student sit-ins against the Vietnam War, to name a few, are all instances where civil disobedience proved to be an important mechanism for social change. The ultimate impact of more recent acts of civil disobedience – anti-abortion trespass demonstrations, the damaging of military property in opposition to the Iraq war, or acts of disobedience taken as part of the environmental movement or the animal rights movement – remains to be seen.

---

From the article, note the examples, some you will agree with some you won’t. Why?

[Theoria]

Add to your kit bag.

Why the Civil Rights Movement Was an Insurgency, and Why It Matters

[stuartcr]

“Drive By” postings...just what do you think an anonymous web forum is all about?

[Responsibility2nd]

I don’t know who the author is, but the question is a good one.

“How can a Civil Right be a Moral Wrong?”

And when it comes to standing up for Civil Rights or engaging in Civil Disobedience - the matter of morality must be clearly understood. And thank God we Americans have a moral document that spells things out for us.

Insert John Adams quote here - - - Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

[I want the USA back]

Those who practice this, and are on the left, are forgiven and become famous.
Those on the right go to jail.

[Rusty0604]

I quietly don’t obey laws that I don’t think are just or constitutional. And I don’t plan on filling out the healthcare form on my tax return or registering guns (er..if I had any). Problem is I’m only one person so it probably doesn’t help unless a lot of people do it. Supposedly the IRS doesn’t have enforcement powers (yet) on the form so that seems to me to be a good place to start.

[Pollster1]

. . . civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the persons who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law.

Civil disobedience is only effective when dealing with moral people. Obama is somewhere between national socialist and soviet socialist but on the far totalitarian end of the political spectrum - the exact opposite of a moral person. I do not consider accepting the legal consequences of breaking today's new laws to be prudent. I have no desire to show my "fidelity to the rule of law", not when those laws are intentionally written to violate the Constitution and then enforced unequally. We are facing pure evil, and voluntarily giving such people power over your life and freedom is a terrible idea.