Conservative Christians Fighting Back With Civil Disobedience

3132ConservativeChristians

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol. Calling the Commandments “religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths,” the court said the monument must go.

Governor Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.

Governor Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America—an era of civil disobedience like the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.

Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.

Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and parliament and establish our own?

Supreme Court decisions have been defied, and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the Sedition Act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.

New England abolitionists backed the antislavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 southern states had the same right to break free of Abraham Lincoln’s Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III’s England.

Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.

In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.

Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the “back of the bus.”

In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine—“an unjust law is no law at all”—and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as “a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Said King, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

But who decides what is an “unjust law”?




 
 

If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates “eternal law and natural law,” do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a “moral responsibility to disobey such laws”?

Rosa Parks is celebrated. But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the homosexual crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.

But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the decision legalizing homosexual marriage as holy writ?

And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as King if they disobeyed those laws?

Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.

Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as King instructed, be disobeyed.

And the removal of tax exemptions will then be on the table.

If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country today.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural and political views and values, is taking place.

America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote 25 years ago.

And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of 1950s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs and values?

Why should they?

Donate to us

Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate and the author of the new book THE GREATEST COMEBACK: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

image_print

4 Responses to Conservative Christians Fighting Back With Civil Disobedience

  1. Horace Rossingnol says:
    Governor Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America—an era of civil disobedience like the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law. Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.
  2. Fheebs says:
    I guess they FINALLY realize that WE ALL know that “Moses” was just ANOTHER one of their fables/fantasies, huh?!!?
  3. Eileen K. says:
    The USSA Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. First, with Roe v. Wade in 1973; and, just recently, with both Obamacare and Same-Sex “Marriage.”

    Abortion’s the deliberate killing of an unborn child (murder); there are other, better choices for a mother to make. Either raise the child herself after it’s born, or give the child up for adoption (there are hundreds of couples out there seeking to adopt; they could adopt an unwanted child and give him/her a good, stable life).

    Second, health insurance is both a product and a service; and, according to the Constitution, the federal gov’t has no authority whatsoever to force people to buy it. Like laws governing wearing seat belts, health insurance is the purview of the states, not the feds.

    And, last of all, the Constitution forbids both state and federal gov’ts to coerce businesses and institutions to perform services that are contrary to natural law 🙁

    Pat, you’re right on the mark with this article. Great job 🙂

  4. Kevin says:
    To equate your disapproval of homosexuals with Dr. King’s fight for racial equality is shameful. He was trying to stop racial inequality, not keep a segment of the population “in the closet.” For shame.

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked with an *. Your email address will not be published. All comments containing hyperlinks will be held in moderation until they are formatted properly, but will be posted. All comments containing obscenities will be amended and posted, unless they are too obscene and nonsensical, in which case they will be deleted.