I probably should "reel myself in" a little and focus on more conventional "protestors and activists". I think I'll focus my argument on "unjust laws". Found a quote from Dr. MLKQuote:
Originally Posted by Rick
"We must continue to stand up, and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience, even if that means breaking unjust laws."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pal334
I understand your intent and slightly agree with the point you are trying to make, but...
Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. It was not founded on legal action, diplomacy, beurocracy or voting and BTW, we are not a true democracy either. What would Ben Franklin do?
The real point to ponder is it all depends on which side of the fence you are on. I think 250kev made some good points. There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism.
Do I agree with terrorist acts against our country? Hell no!
Would I willfully accept another government coming into my country and/ or controlling me or placing restrictions on me. Hell no! I would violently protest!
I would try diplomacy and voting first, but when push comes to shove.....
We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work.
The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Innapropriate action and Mass disobedience of law is what this country was founded on. In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, LEGAL ACTIONwas initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, THEN more forceful action was started.
There is a fine line between patriotism and terrorism. There certainly is not a fine line! Read above.
We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work. Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where "that just doesn't work".
MLK? Isn't he the guy who was murdered by someone else protesting him? :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Excellent point. It is a spiral that is completely unproductive and destructiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
Another point worth mentioning is everyone in this fledgling country left some other country to come here. Many because they disagreed with some form of censorship or prejudice. Most because of religious persecution. The point is, if you feel that you are oppressed and can not operate within the framework of law then you are free to do as they did and find another country.
Could I then call the politicians who are trying to fundamentally change our country (subvert the Constitution), terrorists and then treat as such?Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Or, what if a governor of a state issued an executive order against your religious organization, and that anyone who held your religious beliefs "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary". Well, it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Wiki "Extermination Order"
What if.......the earth spirals out into the universe and the planet becomes an ice ball?
Sarky - Just for my own curiosity, how would you have the country run and by whom?
I think the question should be "TO WHOM is civil disobediance ever Justified..." For example, When we decided to become a nation, many of us labeled those fighting towards that end as "patriots," but Britain labeled them as "traitors."
A local woman here was late to work and was speeding, turned a corner, running a stop sign & failing to use her turn signal. A cop saw her and turned on his lights, yet she sped on to work. When he finally caught up to her she said: "I was going to be late to work, your crap can wait!" She was also charged with resiting arrest, was the officer wrong? She obviously thought she was in the right. This all seems to be a matter of perspective. :cool2:
What if ya'lls what if get out of hand? I imagine the answers will too.
Wow, this really seems like a fascinating subject and has created some pretty serious debate. I would love to participate but in order to do so, I'll need someone to explain just one detail to me. What are these things called "laws" that everyone keeps referring to?
Pal 34: The great part of our system is that you do not have to agree with me, nor I with you.
Me: so true! God bless america!
pal34: In fact our country was based upon people claiming their rights to freedom. We were not in another country, the folks as a whole made the determination to declare independence. when the then ruling group refused, LEGAL ACTIONwas initiated. When the ruling group visited violence on the independence seeker, THEN more forceful action was started.
Me: Our country was based upon big businessmen refusing to pay taxes.
If we were not in another country what country were we in? The USA? We were in British colonies!
The folks as a whole had absolutely no say in this. A very small group of wealthy businessmen decided for us without our input.
It was not legal action in the eyes of the ruling group or many of our potential allies for that matter.
Was it legal to dump all that tea in the harbor?
Was it legal to go against the laws of britain?
Was it legal to declare our independance?
Pal34: We can hire lawyers and vote till we're blue in the face, but in some cases that just doesn't work. Other than the "What if" scenarios that have been puked up in this string no one has shown any real instance where "that just doesn't work".
Me: Hmm?? did we get a vote to ban assault weapons? I don't recall one.
Was there a vote to ban high powered hunting rifles in the southern third of my state for deer hunting? NO!
Was there a vote to allow dove hunting in Michigan? Yes! Did we win? Yes! Is dove hunting legal in Michigan? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did many a local community get a vote to ban hunting in part or altogether? NO!
Did the lawyers or voting prevent any of this? NO! Did lawyers make money in the process? Yes!
Are we getting a vote to enact or decline national healthcare? Did we vote to decide to go or stay out of Iraq, kuwait, afghanistan, vietnam? Did we vote for or against medicare, social security? No! Someone else is deciding these things for us. We have absolutely no say in the final outcome.
How is that working out for us?
Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.
I would! but, that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SARKY
Or stay here and make another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Perhaps you need to look-up the difference between a democracy, and a democratic republic. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwc1969
Do I agree with violent protest? Yes! as long as that protest supports my ideals.
Guess that says it all. Have a great day
Sorry, but that just isn't true. We've had this conversation on here before. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence we not rich at all. Most were lawyers, several were physicians, some were merchants and farmers. You'll find that many died as paupers. Big businessmen is a misnomer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RWC
In fact, it originally began because the thirteen colonies were being governed without representation. Officially, the Revolutionary era started in 1763. The taxation laws were only considered wrong because the American colonies lacked representation in the House of Parliament. It wasn't the refusal to pay taxes but to pay taxes without elected representation, which was seen as a violation of the rights of an Englishman.
people behind the iron curtains in germany and russia tried to escape their totalitarian governments. this was against the law.
to those of you who claim that protest should always take the form of legal action, would you say that people defecting from repressive, totalitarian governments are not within reason of doing so because their protest does not take the form of legal action and they should instead have called upon courts and lawyers to hear their case?
I think you may be comparing apple to oranges. I believe most response (at least mine was) were referring to protest in the United States, not in a dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by oneraindog