Civil Disobedience

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I had my third discussion with my 7th grade classes.

 

We were talking about the Puritans establishing their colony in the 1630's. However, in the 1640's ad 50's, a group of Quakers kept getting kicked out of the colony. They kept coming back because they thought being kicked out for their religious beliefs was unfair -- and the Puritans passed harsher laws against them (from first just jailing and booting them out to burning holes in the tongue/cutting off the ear) Then, by 1 vote in the Puritan government, they passed a capital punishment offense law for Quakers that kept coming in using self-defense as their argument. A woman named Mary Dyer who disagreed with the Quakers being targeted unfairly (using the idea of Inward Light that peoples' consciences could tell them the will of God) and had been warned numerous other times came back one more time, refused to be let go and was hanged. After the hanging, the public opinion and England took notice and banned the executions.

 

The story led to a pretty interesting discussion about if Mary was right in continuously returning, when people should follow laws, why we follow laws and if it is ever justified for people to break laws that they think are unfair -- and how to develop a criteria for what an unfair law is. As always, they also had to come up with alternatives to the problem in the story that treat everybody involved respectfully.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I had my third discussion with my 7th grade classes.

 

We were talking about the Puritans establishing their colony in the 1630's. However, in the 1640's ad 50's, a group of Quakers kept getting kicked out of the colony. They kept coming back because they thought being kicked out for their religious beliefs was unfair -- and the Puritans passed harsher laws against them (from first just jailing and booting them out to burning holes in the tongue/cutting off the ear) Then, by 1 vote in the Puritan government, they passed a capital punishment offense law for Quakers that kept coming in using self-defense as their argument. A woman named Mary Dyer who disagreed with the Quakers being targeted unfairly (using the idea of Inward Light that peoples' consciences could tell them the will of God) and had been warned numerous other times came back one more time, refused to be let go and was hanged. After the hanging, the public opinion and England took notice and banned the executions.

 

The story led to a pretty interesting discussion about if Mary was right in continuously returning, when people should follow laws, why we follow laws and if it is ever justified for people to break laws that they think are unfair -- and how to develop a criteria for what an unfair law is. As always, they also had to come up with alternatives to the problem in the story that treat everybody involved respectfully.

 

 

It was rather interesting to me in reading your post here that the answer I commonly use for this type of discussion was already written.

 

After the hanging, the public opinion and England took notice and banned the executions.

 

If the masses truly believe that a law is unjust then they will work within the system to change the law. I don't believe for a minute that people have a right to disobey laws which laws they find distasteful. A society where the rule of law is optional is not a society at all. It is, in truth, the very definition of anarchy.

[Texsox]

If the masses truly believe that a law is unjust then they will work within the system to change the law. I don't believe for a minute that people have a right to disobey laws which laws they find distasteful. A society where the rule of law is optional is not a society at all. It is, in truth, the very definition of anarchy.

 

I assume you are speaking strictly about democracies where the masses have a mechanism to change the law. Even with that, I believe Rosa Parks sitting up front is a perfect example of when breaking the law is the right course of action.

[Gregory Pratt]

I was under the impression that she was on the back of the bus, not the front.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If the masses truly believe that a law is unjust then they will work within the system to change the law. I don't believe for a minute that people have a right to disobey laws which laws they find distasteful. A society where the rule of law is optional is not a society at all. It is, in truth, the very definition of anarchy.

 

Wow, you still haven't got over the whole big break-up with Mother England and forming our own nation thing yet then, huh?

 

[Texsox]

I was under the impression that she was on the back of the bus, not the front.

you are correct. I confused first row of black seats with front of the bus. Old age.

[YASNY]

There is a place and time for civil disobedience. I believe we are quickly approahing that place and time. I'm ready.

[Texsox]

There is a place and time for civil disobedience. I believe we are quickly approahing that place and time. I'm ready.

You are right, and I'd love to help you, but it's still pretty hot outside, and the kids have me running everywhere, and I'm really busy at work, plus it's almost Thanksgiving, and then you know Christmas is right around the corner, why don't we try a little disobedience after the first of the year. . . Plus this is probably all made up by the liberal media or activist judges or a vast right wing conspiracy . . .

 

Sad but most people do not even know how to send a letter to their elected leaders. According to a staffer for my congressman almost all their mail seems to come from the same people or concentration letter campaigns where people clip and ship, no original thought. I believe my Senators have my email address on their spam list