What is civil disobedience, really?

[SteveSGU]

Here are some thoughts about "civil disobedience" that I thought expressed well what some of my concerns are about Soulforce's methods...

As for how I would have advised Rosa Parks. I would have urged her to stay in her seat because by doing so she would show her objection to a law that she felt was wrong, and she was right to take a stand on principle against that law by refusing to obey it. As a result of her actions she helped to end racial segregation and for that we all should thank her for her act of civil disobedience. Had she killed the bus driver or committed some other illegal act I would condemn her actions as nothing more than those of a criminal. The heritage of civil disobedience that Martin Luther King, Jr. and other great reformers have left us is not a heritage of breaking the law.

Unlike, in this instance at BYU it was the law that Rosa Parks was protesting that she violated and not one that she agreed with and which she benefited by. What Rosa Parks did was civil disobedience but what Soulforce did today was nothing more than a criminal act of trespass. It can be argued that no one was harmed by it but that isn't the point of our laws. Laws are put in place to protect people equally, and BYU made it clear that they did not want Soulforce on BYU property. That is sufficient for me.

I do not believe that it can be argued reasonably that individuals or groups have the right to violate one law to draw attention to another that they disagree with (i.e., they cannot kill people to draw attention to an unjust law such as racial segregation but they can drink from white only water fountains and sit in white only seats on buses if they object to such laws).

To do so would create anarchy and would make legitimate the use of force such as bombings if someone objects to the war in Iraq or to a policy of an organization or group such as bombing oil rigs. The contempt I have for Soulforce's actions is based in my dislike for unlawful acts such as murder and trespass being used as a method of changing a policy or a law.

I believe that unless they object to laws against trespass then Soulforce's actions cannot be considered civil disobedience anymore than theft or murder can be considered civil disobedience. If they do not believe the law is wrong then they had no right to violate the law. They no more can trespass on private property than they can assassinate someone to draw attention to an unjust law.

The acts of the Unibomber, the Oklahoma City Bomber and others are not justified. The actions of Soulforce are to a lesser degree not justified and should be condemned by all reasonable people including progressives such as myself.

That I generally agree with their positions on this issue does not change the reality that what they did was illegal and was nothing like what Rosa Parks did. What she did took real courage and drew attention to a law that was wrong by refusing to obey that law.

What Soulforce did was violate the law and the rights of BYU that are at the core of what Rosa Parks and other great reformers stood for.

This is where I am coming from. I have nothing against Soulforce's position other than that they violated the law and felt it was justified. At least, it is only a minor trespass infraction and not a decision to take the life of another person as has been the case in the past from such groups who feel the use of force and bombs are justified acts of civil disobedience.

[NathanATX]

Welcome to the Soulforce forums, Steve.

I look forward to getting to know you.

Peace,
Nate

[Zerbie]

Hi Steve,

Welcome to a forum full of intense discussion about these very issues.

I'm afraid I can't devote energy to as full a reply as your comments warrant, since I am in school and it is term-paper time, and I really need to start focusing my attention on narrowing down my topic and doing some research. But I didn't want to ignore your post.

Take a look around the forum some more; you will find this topic being discussed continually the past week or so. See threads started by jacobison and by simpleman. You can get a sense of the various viewpoints from reading all the responses to those posts.

Whether or not setting foot on private property to express disagreement with policy is acceptable, and if so, to what extent and where the boundaries are drawn, is constantly under scrutiny here. I agree it's a valid point for discussion.

However, I cannot let it slide that you keep referring to murder and bombings, with an implication that SF might any moment just murder a BYU student or something, as part of the E Ride. There is no fair comparison between say, walking onto the BYU campus versus bombing it to smithereens. Please do not equate the E Riders to murderers. It isn't accurate, nor is it fair, and if you continue, I wager someone here will call on it in no uncertain terms.

That said, welcome to the discussion table. Take a look around at the other threads on this subject, and see all the grey area that is being talked about.

I need to curtail my forum time for a while - though it will be hard for me to stay away.

[SteveSGU]

Hi!

Thanks for your reply and your comments.

Please note that I was quoting somebody else in most of my post tonight, because I thought they expressed well my concerns about breaking the law and the constant conflict and confrontive confrontation and arrests at most every stop on the Equality Ride. (And what a waste of money going to all of those fines!)

You are absolutely right that there is no comparison between disrespecting private property and being destructive, but I don't believe the person I quoted was comparing the Equality Riders with bombers or murderers. He was just giving an example of how breaking a just law could not be used as "civil disobedience" to make a statement about an unjust situation. I don't believe the Equality Riders have accomplished nearly as much as they could have, because they have caused doors to dialogue to be closed because of their confrontive tactics. BYU is a perfect example. Last year, they had dialogue with many students, but then they caused a big scene by having 29 people arrested, and because of that, this year they were not able to dialogue with many BYU students or staff.

I would hope that their upcoming visits will be handled differently.

Thanks to everyone for your comments and thoughts about this.


Steve

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

He was just giving an example of how breaking a just law could not be used as "civil disobedience" to make a statement about an unjust situation.

But that's exactly what civil disobedience often involves.

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. It could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement. Civil disobedience has been used in nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's social welfare campaigns and campaigns to speed up independence from the British Empire), in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, and in the American Civil Rights Movement. The American author Henry David Thoreau pioneered the modern theory behind this practice in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience (Wikisource Text), originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government". The driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and how one is in morally good standing as long as one can "get off another man's back"; so one doesn't have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it). This essay has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War.

And...

Civil disobedience in the United States
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s also adopted civil disobedience techniques, and antiwar activists both during and after the Vietnam War have done likewise. Since the 1970s, pro-life or anti-abortion groups have practiced civil disobedience against the U.S. government over the issue of legalized abortion. From the 1970s onward, various groups and organizations such as the Puerto Rican Independence Party, have successfully performed civil disobedience campaigns to stop military war games staged in areas close to civilian populations living in the islands of Culebra and Vieques, Puerto Rico. See, for example, the Navy-Vieques protests.
[edit]Civil disobedience and religion
Many who practice civil disobedience do so out of religious faith, and clergy often participate in or lead actions of civil disobedience. A notable example is Philip Berrigan, a Roman Catholic priest who was arrested dozens of times in acts of civil disobedience in antiwar protests. Also, groups like Soulforce, who favor non-discrimination and equal rights for gays and lesbians, have engaged in acts of civil disobedience to change church positions and public policy.

[SteveSGU]

> Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. It could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Respectful disagreement with the law that one refuses to obey, not with some other law.

> Civil disobedience has been used in nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's social welfare campaigns and campaigns to speed up independence from the British Empire), in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, and in the American Civil Rights Movement.

But apparently always against unjust laws, with disobedience to those laws.

> Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War.

I could see making a moral decision not to support a war with one's tax money, etc., but I think the organizers of the Equality Ride are not applying the principles of honest civil disobedience to unjust laws. They should perhaps instead think about encouraging people who don't agree with a private university's moral stand to study elsewhere.

In the end, the only right we have with regards to another person's sincere personal morality is to express our viewpoint in dialogue. Just as there are sincere and thinking people in the pro-gay camp who see their goals as moral improvements for society, there are sincere and thinking people in traditional religious groups who believe that their worldview is more beneficial to society and to individuals.


Steve

[Zerbie]

I do not see where in your original post you stated that you were quoting someone else. Is the entire post a verbatim quote? If not, what parts of it did you write, and what parts are quoted? From whom and where?

Thanks.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

Please note that I was quoting somebody else in most of my post tonight, because I thought they expressed well my concerns about breaking the law and the constant conflict and confrontive confrontation and arrests at most every stop on the Equality Ride. (And what a waste of money going to all of those fines!)

For some reason, we have had several posts of "other people's" opinions lately. Oh well. Perhaps you could have credited the other person, or just mentioned that in your first post - it would have been - well, let's just say honest.

Civil disobedience is confrontive and intended to bring attention to conflicted situations. To claim, however, that there has been constant conflict and confrontive confrontation, besides being strangely redundant, is to exaggerate. Despite your opinion, there have been many posters, many of whom are students, who have written in thanking and praising the E-Riders. There have also been many commenting on the respectful way the E-Riders conducted themselves. Aside from that, I must tell you, I think Soulforce should truly appreciate your concern for it's money. Thank you.

You are absolutely right that there is no comparison between disrespecting private property and being destructive, but I don't believe the person I quoted was comparing the Equality Riders with bombers or murderers. He was just giving an example of how breaking a just law could not be used as "civil disobedience" to make a statement about an unjust situation. I don't believe the Equality Riders have accomplished nearly as much as they could have, because they have caused doors to dialogue to be closed because of their confrontive tactics. BYU is a perfect example. Last year, they had dialogue with many students, but then they caused a big scene by having 29 people arrested, and because of that, this year they were not able to dialogue with many BYU students or staff.

If there is no comparison meant, why was one made. I know that it wasn't your opinion - you just posted someone else's. So now you could step back and say that other person was wrong in saying so, but you are still right because it wasn't your words - despite you putting those words in your post. Or you could, if you like, say "I don't believe the person I quoted was comparing ...", but since they are not your words you don't know what they really meant. That's the problem with using someone else's words - we really don't know and can't comment for them. What do you mean? Forget using someone else's words - use yours.

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

> Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. It could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Respectful disagreement - oh come on, please. It is non-violent but intrusive. That's the nature of the beast. You don't like it. Good for you - don't do it. That was pretty easy, eh.

Respectful disagreement with the law that one refuses to obey, not with some other law.

But apparently always against unjust laws, with disobedience to those laws.

Unjust laws are being passed in many states restricting the civil rights of GLBT people and families. These laws are based on religious rhetoric that emanates out of certain churches and certain colleges/universities. While E-Riders do not protest at churches, they choose to protest at college and universities because they participate in the social educational structure, and they impart erroneous scientific and biased religious information that is then used by political leaders and voters alike. These places are a source of misinformation that result in flawed laws.

Gandhi's followers were arrested and beaten for blocking city streets - they were charged with criminal mischief, traffic violations, inciting riot, and all manner of other laws. They were not, however, campaigning against those laws in particular. They were campaigning for self-rule and economic sovereignty. Martin Luther King himself was convicted of failing to obey a police officer. To my knowledge, he did not think that obeying a police officer was an unfair law. On October 19, 1960, Dr King and other protestors were arrested at a sit in in violation of trespassing laws. He was not campaigning against trespassing laws. During the late 60's and early 70's war protestors were arrested at sit-ins because they blocked access to public building. They were not campaigning against laws dealing with access.

In the course of civil disobedience, some civil laws are broken while campainging for change in other areas. Those laws are many times used in an authoritarian manner to restrict public protests or limit disobedience. The E-Riders stepped on private property to go to a worship service, or to carry a sign, or to chalk on sidewalks - and sometimes they got arrested for trespassing. It was the schools right to arrest them for breaking the law - that was their choice. The game plays out. Again, if you don't like it that is your choice - I can only assume that's why you didn't sign on to go on a bus. To insist that they shouldn't do it because you don't like it or agree with it is, well, just a tad self-involved, isn't it? The bottom line is both parties did what they thought was right and, in the public press at least, the schools have come out looking autocratic and intolerant. That the breaks. That's the point.

I could see making a moral decision not to support a war with one's tax money, etc., but I think the organizers of the Equality Ride are not applying the principles of honest civil disobedience to unjust laws. They should perhaps instead think about encouraging people who don't agree with a private university's moral stand to study elsewhere.

Well, yes we gathered you didn't agree and even that you may offer another solution. That's not what was chosen as a course of action, however. Thanks for sharing your opinion. The organizers of the E-Ride had a different one. Oh well. Wouldn't the world be great if we all shared but one opinion.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

In the end, the only right we have with regards to another person's sincere personal morality is to express our viewpoint in dialogue. Just as there are sincere and thinking people in the pro-gay camp who see their goals as moral improvements for society, there are sincere and thinking people in traditional religious groups who believe that their worldview is more beneficial to society and to individuals.

Hi Steve. Welcome to this forum.

You will not find may people who will quibble with the thought that there are sincere and thoughtful people everywhere. The problem arises, however, when some of the thoughtful and sincere people in the world are sincerely ignorant of those who, for no fault of their own, are different from the former.

That sincerity and thoughfulness inspires anti-gay laws and anti-gay policies only tells this reader that something is missing in your argument. And that is sustained and concentrated effort to fully understand the experience of those who desire happiness and joy- and are prevented from the same by laws and policies which have no purpose other than to oppress.

It is not enough to be sincere. One can be sincerely mistaken.

I'm afraid you make it sound as though the two 'sides' are somehow equal. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of those sides does not have equal rights.

[SteveSGU]

Hi!

You are correct that I wasn't really clear about which part of my original message was quoting my friend. Basically, the first paragraph was me talking, and the rest were his ideas I was sharing that I pretty much agree with.


Steve

P.S.
Thanks to the others for your thoughts, also. I won't have time to comment on everything, but I think it's good that we think about these things.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

>


I could see making a moral decision not to support a war with one's tax money, etc., but I think the organizers of the Equality Ride are not applying the principles of honest civil disobedience to unjust laws. They should perhaps instead think about encouraging people who don't agree with a private university's moral stand to study elsewhere.

In the end, the only right we have with regards to another person's sincere personal morality is to express our viewpoint in dialogue. Just as there are sincere and thinking people in the pro-gay camp who see their goals as moral improvements for society, there are sincere and thinking people in traditional religious groups who believe that their worldview is more beneficial to society and to individuals.


Steve

First, in regards to the suggestion that those who don't agree with a private university's moral stand to study elsewhere - many students do not have a choice to study elsewhere. That's a real problem. If you read through other threads you will find students who have to hide their true selves in order to continue attending a college and graduating. Otherwise, their fund supply will be cut off (i.e., parents supporting their education). The only choices available to many students are to either hide their true selves or to be out and not attend college. So, while the suggestion may work for some it certainly won't work for everyone.

Then, in regards to the quote of the second paragraph above - the key thing to keep in mind is that the other's worldview has made successful efforts in preventing a significant number of the population to be denied full equal civil rights, namely, those that married homosexuals are privy to. In addition, it also has successfully prevented many homosexuals from enjoying priviledges that heterosexuals enjoy even when not married. For example, take a young dating couple at a religious college (such as one the Equality Ride might visit) - I doubt if they would be expelled from school for someone seeing them holding hands on their way to class. However, put in a homosexual couple and certainly they would no longer be receiving their education at that school. The point of the ER, the need to equal up rights of every person, not just a select group.

US GLBT people are NOT asking for special rights, we are merely demanding the SAME rights as anyone else.

Anyway, welcome to the forums Steve, hope you stick around and share some more. I would also encourage you to read through other threads, you'll get a better idea of who we are and why we are here (not as a group, but more as individuals).