I agree about one thing with the right-wing wacko Schiavo protestors

I refer to the protestors who attempt to walk onto the grounds of the hospice and get arrested -- the ones who do so peacefully and non-violently, not the lunatics making death threats.

They have been making the argument that they have a right to defy a law that they consider immoral and unjust. They compare what they are doing to the civil rights demonstrators of the 1960s.

And they are correct on the narrow issue of whether it is ever justified to defy a court order.

MLK and the SCLC based their movement on such a right. In his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King wrote to local clergy about why he was willing to sit in jail in defiance of a court order:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all".

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

< snip >

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.


Of course, there is a vast difference between the fight against segregation and the Terri Schiavo case. The former touched the conscience of a nation while the latter has outraged a nation.

And there is a vast difference between the unjustness of segregation laws and what the Schiavo protestors perceive as unjust.

But -- as wrong as I believe they are in their cause -- the Schiavo protestors are justified in defying Judge Greer's orders so long as they remain non-violent and are willing to face the music. And if they follow the guidelines that King set out from his jail cell, then their analogy is valid, even if their cause is not.

Where were they when a black child was being pulled of life support against her mothers wishes? Why don't they campaign the politicians for more money for a universal healtchare? What about all those innocent Iraqi children?

Their argument would be more compelling if it were consistent in its application -- if they protested the actions in the Son Hudson case as well.

No doubt about it.

Nobody has a right to break the law.

It is their choice, though.

to break a law, but as King argued, one has a moral responsibility to defy unjust laws.

But, in the Schiavo case, there is no law commanding that these protestors must have nutrition and hydration denied. They're morons.

that the feeding tube be removed.

They see that as an act of murder. It seems to me that if one firmly believes that the state is committing murder, one is compelled to act to try to stop it.

Murder requires the unlawful killing of a human being. There is nothing even colorably unlawful about Terri's death.

I can believe you're the tooth fairy, but if I start protesting outside your house because a dollar wasn't left under my pillow, well . . . you know what I mean.

B-)

what has been considered the unlawful killing of a human being has evolved over the centuries. It used to be lawful in America to burn witches at the stake.

The trick is deciding between what is an unjust law and what is a just law. King's standard was that which uplifts human dignity versus that which degrades it.

Laws are social compacts. Everyone has the right of refusal. That is often the only way that unjust laws are exposed to public scrutiny. It does take courage, because civil disobedience usually has consequences. But it is everyone's right.

I don't believe that you would admire anybody who is willing to go to jail for their beliefs. That would mean you admire a member of NAMBLA for going to jail for his belief that minor boys should engage in sex with adult males. I'm positive you wouldn't admire such a person.

B-)

the cause that someone is advocating from their willingness to face jail to support it.

I compare it to the admiration that some soldiers have for the fighting prowess of the enemy who is trying to kill them. Even though someone is an enemy fighting for an unjust cause, you can admire his courage and tenacity.

Compare what the Schiavo protestors are doing to, for example, a black man in the 60's entering a segregated diner and taking a seat. He is engaging in civil disobedience to protest a law that affects him personally.

The Schiavo protestors are not personally affected by the Schiavo ordeal, except for the extent they choose to be psychologically or spiritually.

...during the civil rights movement. They too risked injury and death, despite not being personally affected by civil rights injustices.

B-)

...and no matter how misguided I think their cause is, I must admire anyone willing to go to jail for their beliefs. I do wish they'd do it somewhere else-- it's a hospice, where people are waiting to die, hopefully in peace-- but that too is their right. Thanks for reminding us of this.

B-)

...or admiration of what they are trying to achieve, but I do admire anyone with the courage of their convictions. I might not agree with them, but I admire their willingness to put their liberty on the line for their beliefs. That's a rare kind of courage-- the willingness to stand against the herd. I salute it.

at a hospice, where 70 people other than Terry Schiavo, have come to spend their last days in peace. His personal morality and decency would not have allowed for that.