Check out some similar questions!

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 09:54 AM

Isn't civil disobedience also unpatriotic? Patriotism, after all, is marked by a love of one's country, even its flaws, such as imperfect laws.

Where in history can we point and say, “There is no doubt, civil disobedience brought about social change that was both good, and passed the test of time.

Civil disobedience is immoral because there are other means of bringing about social change. One primary way of doing this is working within the law, rather than disobeying it. Civil disobedience is better in theory than it is in practice.

The truth of the matter is that today there are hundreds of examples where the nonviolent protests that constitute civil disobedience has lead to violent ones.

excon · Mar 10, 2008, 10:07 AM

Hello again, DC:

There is soooo much wrong with what you said, that I'm not even going to reply - except to say... If we followed your precept, we wouldn't be the USA. We'd be an English Colony. I don't know how that fact escapes you.

Ok, I'm going to say more. Those, whose memories are short are going to do stupid things. Going along is stupid. We don't do that. We've never done that. We're never going to do that. That's not who we are. I can't imagine why you think that.

This country was BORN in dissent. This one proud American, who loves his country too, is going to continue in that vein.

excon

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2008, 10:17 AM

I think the politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate. DC - they have manipulated you.

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 10:19 AM

Uh, hello excon…I'm afraid you forget our country was brought about through “Revolution,” not civil disobedience.

So far a dissent, (to disagree with a widely held or majority opinion) there are many forums where people can disagree with-out breaking the law.

Civil disobedience rather than encouraging patriotism through means of adaptation advocates selfishness.

It essentially encourages people to disobey the law if they do not thoroughly “like” it.

There is an equal chance of creating social change by working within the legal system and by obeying the law. A truly moral and practical citizen would, as a result, take this approach rather than being civilly disobedient and suffering the implications of their illogical and rash actions.

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I think the politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate. DC - they have manipulated you.

Politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate but perhaps it is you and not I that have been manipulated. Like my wife, I love the country, and unlike so many I stayed by her side in spite of her short-comings.

NeedKarma · Mar 10, 2008, 10:36 AM

To continue with your analogy - if your wife beat you senseless and stole your money you'd take it like a beaten puppy and stay around because you're 'patriotic'.

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

To continue with your analogy - if your wife beat you senseless and stole your money you'd take it like a beaten puppy and stay around because you're 'patriotic'.

I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. The fact is that she did not do that and I’m not going to get into her flaws. The same is true about America…there is no law condoning government beating citizens senseless. In fact there are laws protecting citizens from being beaten senseless by anyone.

excon · Mar 10, 2008, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Civil disobedience rather than encouraging patriotism through means of adaptation advocates selfishness.

Hello again, DC:

I don't disagree with the above.

Being a sovereign, I AM selfish about MY rights. You should be too. Bummer that you're not. Don't worry, though. If fighting for MY rights also serves to save YOUR rights too, then I'm happy for you.

You, however, being a person who believes the STATE is sovereign, would have course, believe that people should stifle their dissent for the good of the state.

However, the Bill of Rights says something entirely different. It says I'M sovereign - NOT the state, as you assert. It really does say that. It says that I have certain rights... How can I have these rights if the state is sovereign??

How can you criticize my reading of the Constitution, where it's THAT particular document that tells me, in no uncertain terms, that I AM a sovereign - NOT the state??

To me, the above is as clear as a bell. Again, I haven't a clue what makes you tick...

excon

ordinaryguy · Mar 10, 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end.

So nonviolent civil disobedience is immoral, but violent insurrection is OK? This must be where the "neo" in neo-conservative comes from, i.e. "If you want to change the social order, you'll have to kill me first." Fascinating.

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 11:46 AM

OG, my how you twist words…those are your words, not mine.

excon · Mar 10, 2008, 11:58 AM

Hello again, DC:

Ok, then. Why don't you tell us the steps we should take between writing nice letters and violent revolution?

I'll tell you what the Constitution says, if you're interested… "Congress shall make no law abridging the …. right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What's wrong with that?

excon

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 12:03 PM

excon

Nothing wrong with that…so far as lawful assembly is used; there is a difference you know. The Constitution nowhere say's unlawful assemble is protected under law.

excon · Mar 10, 2008, 12:27 PM

Hello again, DC:

You fell right into my trap. What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? Do you go along with your government? According to you, not to go along would be immoral.

excon

George_1950 · Mar 10, 2008, 12:30 PM

The constitution doesn't say that in the course of lawful assembly a group or subgroup can damage public or private property, which is against the law and violative of the owners' constitutional rights.

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 01:00 PM

excon

What if the Queen had b…s? The point is, she doesn't and we do. By the government do you mean what if both houses of Congress passed a law that made it a crime for people to assemble? Is your hypothetical realistic; I don't think so, but to play along I certainly would not call for civil disobedience…would you? Civil disobedience would not carry us another further than it does today… I would suggest that people follow the direction of Thomas Jefferson, David Walker, Thomas Paine, Che Guevara, Kwame Nkrumah, or Nelson Mandela.

excon · Mar 10, 2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

By the government do you mean what if both houses of Congress passed a law that made it a crime for people to assemble? Is your hypothetical realistic?

Hello again, DC:

Hypothetical??

YouTube - Bridge to Freedom

I don't think you understand how things work down where the rubber meets the road. I'm sure that both houses of the Alabama Congress didn't pass a law that said people can't assemble, but that didn't stop these Alabama cops from making their own law. So, when I say “the government” I'm talking about the cops. Besides, do the marchers care whose law the cops are enforcing?? Nahhhh.

Are you going to tell me that these cops in this video are telling these marchers that they DO HAVE the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government??

Dude! You really do need to pay more attention.

excon

Dark_crow · Mar 10, 2008, 02:23 PM

Exon

Spare me the sob-stories that some people today love to linger over and wallow-in self pity over… …and also the jail-house mentality- “Cops are the government.”

You ax What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? And then give me that nonsense after I reply.

ordinaryguy · Mar 10, 2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

OG, my how you twist words…those are your words, not mine.

Well, you did say that civil disobedience is immoral, and you did say that armed revolution was acceptable "as a means to an end", so I don't see how I twisted your words. Please explain how violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience.

Fr_Chuck · Mar 10, 2008, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

You fell right into my trap. What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? Do you go along with your government? According to you, not to go along would be immoral.

excon

Actually in many cities, you have to get permits for assembly, they can deny them. You will have to provide money for clean up, security and more before you can be allowed to have many assemblies.

Dark_crow · Mar 11, 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, you did say that civil disobedience is immoral, and you did say that armed revolution was acceptable "as a means to an end", so I don't see how I twisted your words. Please explain how violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience.

Yes, violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is carried out with-in the frame-work of a legal authority; that is, the legal authority granted by the people is not challenged but the ethic of following law is broken…a law is violated.

Where-as with revolution the right of the legal authority is challenged, as for instance in America it was the declaration of independence which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."