"Glenn P." wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
But there is no "law on the books" that would authorize citizens to
act illegally--that would be anarchy. And, it certainly wouldn't allow
for each citizen independently to make the judgement of what is
"immoral".

Every citizen does make morality judgements, and they don't need a law
to "allow" it. I do agree with you point about legalizing illegality.

I'm glad you see the conflict. Authorizing illegal behavior whenever
someone sees a moral conflict (in their individual view) would wreak
havoc. It's very much the situation in which we have the pro-lifer
assassinating the abortion doctor.

With regard to the issue in question, the pacifist nuns were certainly
not acting against an abusive or oppressive government

They clearly were, though they weren't the ones being abused or
oppressed. I find them acting for those without voices to be the main
point in their favor.

Who are "those without voices"? Who authorized the sisters to act on
behalf of someone else? I don't think you've got a very compelling
argument with that.

, nor were they
acting as representatives of a majority of the population which had
elected their representatives and given them authority for the
execution of the national defense against a serious threat.

Not all action has to be representing others. Certainly not all action
needs to represent a majority of a population. C'mon now Ed, you think
ALL minority positions lack legitimacy? What about historical change in
opinions? They happen constantly; many things now commonly accepted
started out as odd ideas in one person or small group.

Whoa, you've made a giant leap here. We aren't talking about the
legitimacy of a minority position, we are talking about violation of
the law, possibly even reckless endangerment (see BUFDRVR's earlier
post about the fool pounding on the drain valve of a B-52 external
fuel tank.)

As I initially stated, the right to express minority opinion,
influence public policy and to attempt to convince other's of your
correctness is implicit in the First Amendment. Speak your piece, but
don't cut fences to security installations and pound on nuclear
weapons with your moral indignation.

Policy gets made in this country through a process. Sometimes civil
disobedience has been an effective tool--one need only look at the
Freedom Marches and sit-ins of the civil rights movement to see the
evidence. But, when Blacks sat in at lunch counters, they didn't break
the windows to get in, spill blood on the counter and attempt to break
the dishes. There's a difference in the methodology.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038