Disobiedience - Civil and Otherwise

January 22, 2025 (Vol. 19 No. 6) - In protest to the Mexican-American War, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay some of his taxes and ended up spending a night in jail. From that experience, Thoreau penned one of his most famous essays, Civil Disobedience, in which he contended that the people's first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law dictated by the majority. In Thoreau's time, the moral issue was slavery. In the century and a half that followed, many have wrongly interpreted the essay's meaning. They get the part about standing up against what they see as wrong. But just because they see something as wrong does not mean that their view is the moral view and the opposing view is immoral. Not everything is a moral issue. Nor does it suggest that taking a moral stance protects one from repercussions - Thoreau did spend a night in jail. This week has shown us what a muddled mess determining right from wrong and the moral from the immoral can be. A mob attacked the United States Capitol four years ago. The man most responsible for unleashing the hounds of insurrection has gotten away with his crimes and, in turn, made it possible for the mob to get away with its crimes, as well. Those of us who oppose this Master of Disaster are righteous in our indignation. We are equally bothered by his scapegoating of immigrants to our shores. And we are confronted with news that he has instructed the Justice Department to prosecute any elected officials in so-called "sanctuary cities" who fail to enforce immigration laws. There are those among us who feel that blocking forced deportations would be the moral stance to take. I am going to let the readers decide that for themselves. But let me share with you three salient points. There's a difference between non-cooperation with federal officers and obstruction of justice. Just because a city may not block arrests, doesn't mean it has to facilitate them, either. Also, don't assume that just because you deem your stance as a moral one doesn't mean that there are not consequences for disobeying the law. (Of course, the other guy believe his is the moral position.) Finally, this is not a tit-for-tat situation. Just because the party currently in power flaunts the law and undermines democratic government doesn't mean that the loyal opposition should, either. Failing to follow the requirements of immigration law as they are currently being exercised does as much to question the legitimacy of our government as does, say, storming the Capitol to overturn a fair election. Elections have consequences, even if we don't like them. In other words, you can't have it both ways. If you are upset over the events of this week, take heart. You may have lost the most recent battle. But there are other battles to come and we've just begun to fight. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.