Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Obedience and the Law: In Brief
First, a personal announcement. Apparently, I lack style...blogging style that is. If that is the case, then it is not nearly the only kind of style that I lack. Nevertheless, I assure all of the "readers" out there that I will try to do better. I will buy a double-heaping helping of style the next time that I am the style store, and can only hope that it will suffice. Again, I profusely apologize to all of our "readers."
Enough self-deprecation, and on to the thunder-stealing.
Before I allow myself to be misrepresented, and indeed, in an attempt not to misrepresent myself, I should clarify an issue that goes to the second of Jody's talking points in response to the second of my styllistic nightmares that masqueraded as a response. You can see the original post here; I'll just focus on the point itself:
I personally owe so much to people of color who marched in the sixties to protest and combat unjust laws. These people made conscious decisions to break laws that they did not agree with, and in accepting the consequences that were heaped upon them by a power structure in whose interest it was to perpetrate injustice, most of them did so with a grace that shed light on the circumstances of their oppression - a light that began forcing change. Our country would be a far worse place for everyone if those brave civil disobients hadn't done what they did.
Now on the other hand, you aren't bravely fighting highway safety laws by refusing to drive at or below the posted speed limit on the interstate. You aren't being courageous and sticking it to the man by lighting up a joint because you disagree with drug laws.
Or at least, I don't think you are. And therein lies the problem. One person's civil disobedience is another person's intransigience and lawlessness. Where do we draw the line? Someone wiser than I might have to make that decision for all time. I can only call these things as I see them.
If a group like Catholic Charities decides to actively disobey the law, are the bravely fighting for change in the system? Or are they suppressing a "legitimate" and "reasonable" need of a portion of their employee base? Is the Salvation Army standing up to an oppressive tyranny of the majority? Or are they themselves oppressing a minority of their employee base by refusing them the same rights and benefits that they grant to other employees for reasons that are "discriminatory"?
Boy, that's a tough one...
Comments(0) |
First, a personal announcement. Apparently, I lack style...blogging style that is. If that is the case, then it is not nearly the only kind of style that I lack. Nevertheless, I assure all of the "readers" out there that I will try to do better. I will buy a double-heaping helping of style the next time that I am the style store, and can only hope that it will suffice. Again, I profusely apologize to all of our "readers."
Enough self-deprecation, and on to the thunder-stealing.
Before I allow myself to be misrepresented, and indeed, in an attempt not to misrepresent myself, I should clarify an issue that goes to the second of Jody's talking points in response to the second of my styllistic nightmares that masqueraded as a response. You can see the original post here; I'll just focus on the point itself:
2. Personal beliefs should not allow people to ignore the law.What I should have said clearly, if this is the impression that I gave, is that if one allows one's personal beliefs to serve as impetus for disobeying the law, then one should be fully prepared to accept the consequences of their ethical choices.
I personally owe so much to people of color who marched in the sixties to protest and combat unjust laws. These people made conscious decisions to break laws that they did not agree with, and in accepting the consequences that were heaped upon them by a power structure in whose interest it was to perpetrate injustice, most of them did so with a grace that shed light on the circumstances of their oppression - a light that began forcing change. Our country would be a far worse place for everyone if those brave civil disobients hadn't done what they did.
Now on the other hand, you aren't bravely fighting highway safety laws by refusing to drive at or below the posted speed limit on the interstate. You aren't being courageous and sticking it to the man by lighting up a joint because you disagree with drug laws.
Or at least, I don't think you are. And therein lies the problem. One person's civil disobedience is another person's intransigience and lawlessness. Where do we draw the line? Someone wiser than I might have to make that decision for all time. I can only call these things as I see them.
If a group like Catholic Charities decides to actively disobey the law, are the bravely fighting for change in the system? Or are they suppressing a "legitimate" and "reasonable" need of a portion of their employee base? Is the Salvation Army standing up to an oppressive tyranny of the majority? Or are they themselves oppressing a minority of their employee base by refusing them the same rights and benefits that they grant to other employees for reasons that are "discriminatory"?
Boy, that's a tough one...
Comments(0) |
