| OCR Text |
Show Philosophy has roofs in teachings otf Jesus BY MARK GUSTAVSON Chronicle Staff Civil disobedience is almost universally uni-versally misunderstood and misinterpreted. misi-nterpreted. That is so because most people do not spend sufficient suf-ficient time to fully investigate the discipline and also because so many bomb-throwing iconoclasts complement their actions and ! seek justification in the title "civil disobediant." (God?) and a hoped-for moral advantage over the adversary. The proponents of civil disobedience believe that such ethical superiority su-periority can come by meeting the enemy on your grounds ("higher" ones, of course) and not his. The advocates argue that one can hardly lay any claim to superiority if one meets the oppressor op-pressor with the same tactics that he employs. According to the ethic, if one fails this Drimarv test matized to large numbers of people. And what better way than for blacks to simply occupy a Georgia restaurant and force the axe-wielding owner to summon the police to remove the obstructors obstruc-tors before a national audience? Or to dramatize one's oppostion to state efforts to deprive a man of his life and freedom by quietly going limp in a Selective-Service Induction Center? Despite their apparent of moral preeminence, then that civil disobediant is merely a carbon car-bon of the oppressor paying lip service to a "higher Code." A distinction must be made bctweecn the two types of civil disobedience which exist. Eliliui Burrilt, a 1 9th Century Christian anarchist, once wrote that, when faced with oppression, one must simply "endure and offer no resistance resis-tance to the oppressor." Jesus' thoughts best illustrated this nonobstructive non-obstructive approach to an unjust slate when lie said "I say unto you, resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39). Proponents of this type of resistance resis-tance almost universallv hold a disregard for the lives of others, the advocates of the obstructive form of civil disobedience share with their pacific friends a need to possess some type of moral advan-' advan-' tage. Though some would prefer to employ violent tactics and pass them off as valid examples of civil . disobedience, it is evident that such actions demonstrated little moral advantage over the oppressor. oppres-sor. And mat is the key point and strength of civil disobedience: strength arises from superiority founded on ethicalreligious philosophical grounds. Clearly then, non-violence is preferable to violent actions because then the ethical dilemma and moral burden is not on the disobediant, but on Civil disobedience can trace its history, at least partially from certain teachings of Jesus. Inherent In-herent in Jesus' teachings, and implicit in the writings of later philosophers of like persuasions is an idea andor belief in an Ulti-; Ulti-; mate Code of Justice which may '. or may not be an outgrowth of i thcistic tendencies of beliefs. When one holds such beliefs, he frequently perceives conflicts between be-tween his personal, "higher" Code and the laws of men. And if he is genuinely committed to such an ethic, he cannot obey the statues i of men if they come in conflict with the Ultimate Code. Plato said : it in his trial when he asserted that ! he would obey the "Laws of God rather than those of men." The Book of Acts was later to re-assert such a belief. belief in the untimate goodness of human life and have faith that though the oppressor may kill and hurt them, the civil disobeyer has no right to defend himself to the point of employing any of the tactics the adversary is utilizing. The second, and more dramatic, dra-matic, form of civil disobedience is the obstructive. It is most often employed in issues of domestic importance where the injustice of a particular law must be dra- It is not necessary, however, to hold thcistic beliefs in order to be committed to the ethic of civil disobedience. A person can believe be-lieve that a more ethical system of laws or rules should be instituted and adhered to without positing a thcistic belief as a premise. Permeating most writings on civil disobedience is an emphasis on "overcoming evil with good" the upholders of the law. The resistor freely admits that his role exposes him to the danger of crossing with a state that has the weapons, power, discipline and hardware to suppress. But the civil disobediant claims this as an advantage. Since violent resistance is the only resistance expected and prepared for, the state is at an disadvantage to deal with people who operate from a different premise-that of non-violence. Hence, the civil disobediant says that when he perceives a conflict between a "higher" code and a law of man, he will eventually even-tually win. He recognizes that if the oppressor felt that violence was the only way to deal with the peacefully disobediant, then the tanks would move and kill. But the resistor argues, as Henry David Thoreau did, that when the first man frees one slave, then slavery is forever dead. If there is a concerted effort to resist the state, then the first step has been taken. The pa tit of civil disobedience is painful and difficult. The wrath of the state and the scorn of the majority of the "law-abiding" citizens citi-zens are likely results of ethical resistance. Though the state would use force to deal with the recalitrant, the civil disobediant gains an ethical advantage - so necessary to the development of his ethic over the oppressor through the employment of personal discipline and moral courage. And that is where the strength of the civil disobcdiunt lies. |
