Poll: Civil Disobedience as a Peaceful Form of Political Protest

[Ernie]

Wiki definition:

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government (or any other authority). By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil".

There are various reasons for engaging in civil disobedience.

A. civil disobedience as a peaceful form of political protest
B. civil disobedience as a result of following God rather than man
C. civil disobedience as a result of following one's conscience or one's moral framework
D. civil disobedience because certain laws or directives of the government interfere with what a person wants to do.

This thread is to discuss A. (civil disobedience as a peaceful form of political protest)

11. Other...

[Josh]

The poll doesn't say what particular issues are being protested.

Civil disobedience for a Christian is fine if that means attending church when the government bans church, like they did in 2020.

Civil disobedience is obviously wrong for a Christian when it's over some issue like wanting abortion to be legal.

[temporal1]

Jesus did not organize political blocs.
Jesus did not plunder Caesar’s treasury.

Jesus did not address peoples who lived in democratic republics which require/rely on citizen input, decision-making.
This trips me up, because, scriptures say to respect earthly governments. (Not worship them!)

If a government needs citizen input, is it respectful to refuse? This is a conundrum for me.
Organized blocs go beyond individual citizen input. They intentionally go beyond “one citizen, one vote.”

Powerful lobbies fall into that camp.
They all vie for SPECIAL, not equal, treatment, privileges, protections, funding.

Jesus did not use churches or synagogues for political activism.

Jesus offered Himself authentically equally to everyone. Bar none. He did not overlook slaves or military. All lives matter.
This was probably what made Him THE BIGGEST THREAT, then, and now. 100% equal to all.

Given the forms of citizen-centric governments (like) Canada has, citizens should not be dismissed, demeaned, villified, for voicing opinions, opinions should be invited for consideration.

Wiki is only Wiki, but .. (from the OP) ^^^

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government (or any other authority).

By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil".

This quote sort-of presumes violence. Probably MOST civil disobedience happens quietly, without fanfare, perhaps like a person closing his business due to unwanted new taxes, or other restrictions. In some states, loads of people are moving away from states with over reaching gov mandates. Parents deciding not to have children.

There’s a lot of quiet, nonviolent rejection of policies.

Speaking, writing, marching, voting, are not inherently violent.
These are the means by which some governments function.

Like all servants, public servants require oversight. In scriptures, “a servant’s heart” is of the highest regard.

Altho the spirit of the job description, “public servant” has been largely lost to big egos and greed, i expect this choice of words was originally based in the scriptural call for dignity+respect through humility. i don’t think these words were chosen lightly.

[Ken]

As Ernie points out. Civil disobedience is the peaceful and willful disobedience of unjust laws. It was Black people refusing to go to the back of the bus, or sitting down in 'White's Only" establishments. It is the refusal of pacifists to register for the draft or allow themselves to be conscripted into the armed forces. It was slaves who fled their masters on the underground railroad and the white people who helped them in defiance of fugitive slave laws.

Civil disobedience is not the same thing as protest. The Canadian truckers are not engaging in civil disobedience. Nor were the BLM protesters in 2020. They were simply protesting. If the Canadian truckers had actually wanted to engage in true civil disobedience they could have shown up at the border in mass and force the Canadian authorities to clog up the border by stopping and turning away thousands of trucks who's drivers didn't have the proper vaccine pass. Or who refused to show it. And then you would have had thousands of trucks clogging the border anyway but due to the actions of the state. What would the Canadian government have done if every trucker arriving at the border simply refused to show proof of vaccination. Both those who are unvaccinated and those who are vaccinated but who are also in solidarity with the rest. That would have been effective civil disobedience.

Part of civil disobedience is being willing to accept the consequences for your actions. MLK didn't want their defiance of Jim Crow laws to be ignored. They wanted to fill the jails to overflowing so that the public would be confronted with the injustice.

Christians have always engaged in various forms of civil disobedience. The early Christian martyrs who defied the Roman Empire. And the early Anabaptists to defied the institutional church and state. Those were all forms of civil disobedience that we now honor. All the martyrs in "Martyr's Mirror" were engaged in civil disobedience. And they are what led to the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State.

[JimFoxvog]

I don't know whether 1) or 2) is correct. Both can be effective. Both often are ineffective. I expect coordinating the two approaches is best.

[Neto]

I (reluctantly) checked off also # 10 (in addition to 7-9). "Reluctantly" because only if the appeal is not based on some sort of political coercion through the basis of a vote, or on the basis of citizenship. That is, I feel that any appeal should be based solely on moral grounds, w/o any spoken or perceived repercussions should the appeal not be heeded (such as with-holding a vote, or other types of legal action). Christian appeals should be presented as coming from outsiders to the system. (When I first moved from patriotism to pacifism, I was in favor of activist pacifism - seeking to promote peace through all forms of non-violent means. But it wasn't long before the truth of single loyalty & citizenship - being members of only one "country" - "militated" against this early reaction to the injustice I saw in not only the USA, but in any country of the world.)

[Josh]

As Ernie points out. Civil disobedience is the peaceful and willful disobedience of unjust laws. It was Black people refusing to go to the back of the bus, or sitting down in 'White's Only" establishments. It is the refusal of pacifists to register for the draft or allow themselves to be conscripted into the armed forces. It was slaves who fled their masters on the underground railroad and the white people who helped them in defiance of fugitive slave laws.

Civil disobedience is not the same thing as protest. The Canadian truckers are not engaging in civil disobedience. Nor were the BLM protesters in 2020. They were simply protesting. If the Canadian truckers had actually wanted to engage in true civil disobedience they could have shown up at the border in mass and force the Canadian authorities to clog up the border by stopping and turning away thousands of trucks who's drivers didn't have the proper vaccine pass. Or who refused to show it. And then you would have had thousands of trucks clogging the border anyway but due to the actions of the state. What would the Canadian government have done if every trucker arriving at the border simply refused to show proof of vaccination. Both those who are unvaccinated and those who are vaccinated but who are also in solidarity with the rest. That would have been effective civil disobedience.

Part of civil disobedience is being willing to accept the consequences for your actions. MLK didn't want their defiance of Jim Crow laws to be ignored. They wanted to fill the jails to overflowing so that the public would be confronted with the injustice.

Christians have always engaged in various forms of civil disobedience. The early Christian martyrs who defied the Roman Empire. And the early Anabaptists to defied the institutional church and state. Those were all forms of civil disobedience that we now honor. All the martyrs in "Martyr's Mirror" were engaged in civil disobedience. And they are what led to the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State.

In other words, “it’s not valid civil disobedience if I disagree with the people doing do it”

Try again.

[Ernie]

Christians have always engaged in various forms of civil disobedience. The early Christian martyrs who defied the Roman Empire. And the early Anabaptists to defied the institutional church and state. Those were all forms of civil disobedience that we now honor. All the martyrs in "Martyr's Mirror" were engaged in civil disobedience. And they are what led to the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State.

I think the above described groups engaged in civil disobedience for reasons B&C. I don't think these groups engaged in civil disobedience for reason A.

B. civil disobedience as a result of following God rather than man
C. civil disobedience as a result of following one's conscience or one's moral framework

I regularly engage in civil disobedience whenever I attempt to educate people in the Bible and spiritual matters, even though their country forbids this.

D. civil disobedience because certain laws or directives of the government interfere with what a person wants to do.

I have occasionally made exceptions to laws that are not enforced and generally inconsequential to the purposes for which the law was made.

[Neto]

There is a tight rope to walk when you are in a foreign country that restricts access to certain areas. If you go into a restricted area against the national law, you might well jeopardize not only your own presence in that country, but also that of all of your co-workers. A missionary family (not North American) we knew broke the law by sponsoring a film crew who went from their home country & made a movie about the local culture in the country where the missionaries were working, and then made it a commercial venture. When the mission found out, this family had to leave that country quickly, because had the authorities found out they could have gone to prison for it, and the entire mission team might have been forced to leave as well. They were only allowed to go back after some 4 years or so.
A Brazilian mission operating in our area snuck past a military outpost, there to protect an uncontacted tribe. Yes, their ultimate goal was to bring the Gospel to that people group, but there are other ways to do that, especially through other Indians, who cannot be prosecuted (because Indians are legal minors in Brazil). (They could of course be beaten or killed, but that could also happen to anyone who did that. We knew of one man who was almost certainly murdered by representatives of a special arm of the Indian Agency, organized as protectors of these restricted areas. He was an escaped criminal, and had fled into the jungle to escape being recaptured.)

[barnhart]

Ernie, if I understand the distinction you are making between A and the B-D, is the internet of the participant. Is this accurate? The government being protested will always experience it as A.