Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it ever justifiable?

Yes, in alot of cases

such as

That black woman who sat at the front of the bus in apartheid afrca

how about in western culture?

To kill?
To mess with someone else's girl/guy?

What, what, what do you mean???



I believe in absolutes mostly.

Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.

Civil disobedience forbids killing

modern day

a civil resister, will harbour no anger.
He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
Non-retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.



edit- Modern day....erm...the non-violent palestinian protests against israeli owning of certain areas.

That excludes the idiots who blow themselves up

Civil disobedience: deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives. The command may be disobeyed because it is seen as itself illegitimate or immoral, or because it is a symbol of other policies which are opposed. Civil disobedience may be practiced by individuals, groups, or masses of people.

Here's the revised question, in modern western culture, ie. America for example, is civil disobedience ever justifiable? When and why? for example....

Or no and why?

Is martin luther modern?

Not so much, I mean in like the last 5 years, I'm already using the examples you guys gave, for my theory that it depends on era, but that's another story, so I would say no to Martin Luther

Isn't there a law getting passed so people can't have their underwear showing when they're out?

I would say that it's a peaceful disobedience if that law gets passed, to do so anyway.

Semi-off topic, who want's to place bets how many times that law gets broken?

-AC

excellent I forgot that example

Cant think of anything modern.
That T(cant spell it) square in China, where the students were killed would be useful, but its not modern

Sorry

O/t, is your sig Romeo and Juliet?

yes it is

and about the underwear thing, it technically would be against the law since it defies the offense principle, since some people do find that offensive

Changing bet.

Who wants to wager enough that Tears will break the underwear law?

Anyone?

-AC

I'm sorry, I don't wear my thongs hanging out in fact I hate thongs period schmoll

"I'm sorry, I don't wear my thongs hanging out in fact I hate thongs period"

Eh, I'll getcha...one day.

InKeep,

Heard about it, didn't actually believe it was true. What happened?

-AC

I wonder if sometimes the Judge's sit there at some cases and think:

"You know.....maybe the system doesn't work after all."

-AC

Thats when they arent masturbating in court then?

Isn't allowed in our constitution to be able to speak out and demonstrate what we believe in? Unfortuntaly for many groups we're being silenced.
Then I feel we should just do it and protest, if it doesn't hurt anyone else.

this isn't simply speaking out against something, this is deliberately breaking laws you see as unjust, there's a differnece

People who knowingly break the law should not complain when action is brought upon them, just because they're doing it "civily".

Too quote Maddox - "Civil Disobedience is still disobedience."

The African American Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, Vietnam War Protesting (and most war protesting in general), Gay Rights Movement.....

you name the topic, and chances are there has been civil unrest about it. There is nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in, as long as your fighting peacefully to attain your goal. Although in the eyes of authority figures, civil unrest and disobediance is a crime, it's only because it threatens the power they have over the oppressed.

History has been one long struggle between the classes, and it's always the middle-to-lower class, blue collar, hard working people that are walked all over. Drafting, segregation, racial profiling....it's all there, with no end in sight...not within my lifetime anyways. The upper class "suits", the victims of priviledge, call the shots.
Civil unrest begins when we have had enough.

*fight war not wars*

I disagree, BF brought up a good point, it is still disobedience no? If people just decide to conform the law to their views and beliefs, would this not lead to anarchy, would then others not try to change the law based on their views?

That is why I wanted to use a modern example, I mean in today's society, specially in North America for example, are people not treated more fairly than ever before?

It depends on your view of the law really. If you believe the law is something that should never ever be broken under any circumstance, despite it being a rule made up by someone, then of course civil disobedience is gonna be wrong to you.

-AC

Can anyone here honestly say they never break the law?

Everyone breaks the law (people j-walk, speed, litter, etc). These people do this knowing that what they are doing could, in theory, get them arrested and/or fined. They do it anyways because they feel that the chance of them getting caught or in trouble for their particular action is minimal. However, should they get caught doing one of those things,t hey should not complain about it, it was their choice to break a law, and they should accept the consequences.

So then obviously the law is not as sacred as some are arguing. You can say that by people breaking a law they don't believe in for a cause they are still wrong because it's against the law, but how is that any different than someone j-walking or speeding if they know it's illegal? By breaking a law this either means you simply don't have the self restraint to comply to the law, or you don't agree with that. So how is people fighting for civil rights leading us to anarchy any more than casual speeding or jaywalking? Sure one of the issues is much bigger than the other but they are both people making their own rules and deliberately breaking a law they acknowledge.

I never said that it is leading to anarchy, merely that if someone breaks any law knowingly, they have no right to complain when they are given the appropriate consequences.

Maddox is often right, but he's wrong about this one... True civil disobedience includes accepting whatever punishment that you are dealt for any illegal activities. The idea being that people will realize how unjust being punished for whatever it is was. If you resist punishment, you are not practicing civil disobedience.

I know you didn't, I think silver tears did. And what would you say is the appropriate consequence for Rosa Parks not getting out of her seat? I agree that people shouldn't complain when they get the appropriate consequences of their actions, but the law isn't always right about what the appropriate consequences are. If everyone just abides by all the laws, including laws we find unfair or unjust then those laws will never be improved.

Well, at that time she should have gotten whatever the consequence is for breaking that law. Not saying it's right, or fair, but she knowingly broke the law, and as such she deserved the penalty for that time.

There are ways to try to change laws other then blatantly breaking them, in fact, breaking laws is probably the worst way to try to make a point about them being unjust, it just makes you look dumb for purposely breaking a law.

It is of human nature to complain.

Everybody knows it, yet everybody does it.

That's fine, but if they knowingly break a law then it's their own fault, and they have no right to complain when they recieve a punishment for their actions.

yup, I agree.

Yes you are saying it's right. By saying that the consequences she faced were appropriate to the crime she committed that's basically saying that the law was right about not letting black people sit in the front of the bus. If she got what she deserved than that basically means she was wrong to want to keep her seat. What would you consider is the best way for someone to try to change a law they feel is unjust, assuming they have no authority on the subject?

...

Oh, maybe protest, write to their government representative. Just about anything but purposely breaking a law and then acting like some victim when they get punished for it.

Also, I'm not saying being punished for sitting on a bus is right (not by my current standards, anyways. At the time it was "right" though). I'm saying that at that time, she knowingly broke the law and as such is subjectable too punishment fitting her crime. What IS right is that she was punished for breaking a law.

Oh, and DR, you're right. People don't realize that civil disobedience includes accepting whatever sentance you're dealt.

But how will people realize this punishment is unjust if they never know about it happening? Without resisting and causing a scene basically, nobody would even notice the event except for the other people on the bus.

Then that's not civil disobedience, it's just disobedience.

Those forms of protest are always good too but sometimes ineffective on their own when the country chooses to ignore them.

What makes sitting on a bus any more "right" today than it was 50 years ago? Just cause the law says so? The action is exactly the same. I get what you are saying don't push authority if you don't want to deal with the consequences but if you believe that anyone who does this and gets punished gets what they deserve than that's basically the same thing as agreeing with the laws they were fighting. The punishment can't be right without the law being right.. that doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe it takes a little drama to truly make an impact sometimes.

I'm just saying, it's not civil disobedience if you cause a big scene when the cops try to arrest you. What Rosa Parks did was still civil disobedience because although she refused to move she didn't resist arrest. She broke the law and willingly accepted punishment.

"What makes sitting on a bus any more "right" today than it was 50 years ago? Just cause the law says so?"


Yes!

Yea, MLK accually agreed with that, He said if a law is unjust you should not obey it, but you also must accept the punishment as well.

If you are talking about laws in different states.I would say Texes is the only state that really inforces laws such as the chair.JM

the chair is a law?
remind me to never visit texas

Not Texas PVS, the chair is only a law in Texes. I am not familiar with the state of Texes or exactly how they "inforce" the law, but I will avoid that state if they ever choose to enforce it.

"hello and welcome to texas. be sure to visit our many fine attractions...now if you'll just have a seat right here...and pay no mind to the wet sponge on your head."

Phuck da Police! Yo, I said "Phuck da Police!"...Dey ain't nuthin but swine...

Civil disobediance is an expression of freedom.

I disagree.