Yet the pressing questions of freedom or acquiescence under state authority continue. The issue might be framed as one of kingdom rights. How are individuals and a society to address the trade-off between individual freedoms and collective benefit? The right to dissent from a majority consensus may be a laudable philosophical ideal, but as a practical process in society it is a very different and difficult matter. Most of all is this so when such choices to dissent or disobey arise from religious convictions that are seen as directly attacking the very fabric of the governmental process. In such instances the reaction of the state can be swift and severe, since toleration of individual conscience seems only permissible when the functioning of government is not otherwise disturbed.
Is religious freedom to be seen as an inalienable right, or is it circumscribed by the responsibility of allegiance to the state? Are the principles of civil disobedience particularly relevant to freedom of religion, or are such principles out of harmony with the fundamentals of religious beliefs? And if civil disobedience should be invoked when religious liberty is compromised, to what extent are “illegal” activities condoned?
In most societies it is generally conceded that individuals may believe whatever they may choose. The difficulties arise in how such beliefs are practiced and how they impact society. Intolerance of religion is not in the mind but in action. And this is where religious freedom and civil disobedience may come together in ways that both disturb the convictions of the believer and the regulatory processes of the state.
One of the clearest demonstrations of the impact of civil disobedience in recent history is that of Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha (his program of passive resistance against British rule in India in the period following the Second World War). That too had religious overtones in that Gandhi was also attempting to allow a wide form of religious pluralism, often against the wishes of some of his fellow reformers. His concept of nonviolent resistance to an oppressive regime marks this “freedom struggle” as of interest here.
In his analysis of the principles and process of government, Gandhi expressed similar thoughts to the American philosopher Henry David Thoreau and emphasized the necessity for the option of dissent: “Most people do not understand the complicated machinery of the government. They do not realize that every citizen silently but none the less certainly sustains the government of the day in ways of which he has no knowledge. Every citizen therefore renders himself responsible for every act of his government. And it is quite proper to support it so long as the actions of the government are bearable. But when they hurt him and his nation, it becomes his duty to withdraw his support.”1
In fact, says Gandhi, dissent, and by consequence, civil disobedience, is a requirement when faced with a government and legislation that runs counter to your beliefs: “Disobedience to the law of the State becomes a peremptory duty when it comes in conflict with the law of God.”2 Gandhi’s appeal is to the “higher” law of God, an appeal that many have turned to. When confronted with a requirement that prevented their freedom of religious speech and the right to proselytize, Jesus’ disciples refused to obey, citing the higher requirement to obey God rather than human beings. Similarly Jesus, when confronted with apparently contradictory religious and secular laws, made it clear that each was relevant in its own sphere—giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.
Yet for the religious believer of whatever faith, civil disobedience raises many questions. Are religious people not called to be model citizens? Is not the alternative of anarchy even worse than bad government? What of God-given government? Is it not highly self-centered for any one individual to decide he or she is “above” the law? At what time does the burden of the state become intolerable? What form should civil disobedience and protest take? What of the resort to force to achieve the benefit of religious freedom?
Once again Gandhi, with some propositions for civil disobedience from a perspective of “higher principles”: “A call may come which one dare not neglect, cost what it may. I can clearly see the time coming to me when I must refuse obedience to every single State-made law....When neglect of the call means a denial of God, civil disobedience becomes a peremptory duty.”3
Submission to laws that violate freedom of conscience and religious liberty is “an immoral barter.” It is unacceptable to trade convictions of faith for security or toleration from the state. “It is no part of a citizen’s duty to pay blind obedience to the laws imposed on him.”4
However, this is not violent conflict. “But every nation and every individual have the right, and it is their duty, to rise against an intolerable wrong. I do not believe in armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and anger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run.... We have a better method. Unlike that of violence, it certainly involves the exercise of restraint and patience; but it requires also resoluteness of will. This method is to refuse to be party to the wrong.”5
Of course the American Henry David Thoreau grappled with these issues years earlier: “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”6
Thoreau discovered for himself the challenges of civil disobedience. Refusing to pay his poll tax (objecting to the state’s support of slavery and also not wishing to fund the Mexican war), Thoreau was jailed. His stay was just a night, since someone paid his poll tax for him, much to his annoyance.
American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. echoed Gandhi and Thoreau when he wrote. “... there are two types of laws: just and unjust .... One has not only a legal but a moral resposibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”7
Back to some of those still disturbing questions. Is this not anarchy, a government of the one? To which the quick answer is that all governments are essentially governments of individuals. Surely the answer is as the state seeks to mandate in terms of what its “subjects” shall think and believe. That is the reason legislation that burdens religion is so counterproductive for the state, since it weakens the consensus on which government depends.
But is not government God-given? Yes, but only in its own sphere of operations. When Caesar demands what is God’s, then Caesar must be refused. In fact, civil disobedience is a duty where the alternative is the sacrifice of religious freedom. As nations and states make laws that violate freedom of conscience and as societies proscribe religious practices (except as such practices damage the basic rights of others), the need for nonviolent disobedience can only increase. The greater danger is not from religious pluralism or sectarian oddity or faith apathy but from religious fundamentalism that denies freedom to minorities, from secular states that restrict religious activities, and from a global attitude that sees conformity in thought as worth the blood of any number of martyrs.
Though democracy may be applauded, it cannot safeguard religious freedom, for the majority is frequently ready to legislate against minorities. For this reason, the right to refuse must always be there.
After the Reformation in England, and in particular after the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, Catholics and others were required to pay “recusancy” fines for nonattendance at Anglican churches. In such a situation what would you have done? As a Catholic, would you pay the fine to a government that is violating your religious liberty rights? Or would you attend the Anglican Church while keeping faith with your internal beliefs? Or as an Anglican, would you protest such discriminatory laws?
In the Soviet Union your children are required to attend school on Saturday. As a Seventh-day Adventist or a follower of Judaism, you hold the Sabbath sacred. So do you send your children to school, or keep them home with you or in church, risking that the state will take your children?
A conscientious objector, you refuse to bear arms. Your country demands that you serve in the military and does not provide any alternative. Do you enter the military and try to do your best there? Or refuse, and go to prison, or worse? Or flee the country, leaving your family behind? Or to adopt the principles of civil disobedience, do you deliberately flout the law, encourage others to do so, and start a campaign against such laws?
The siege of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas, still troubles many. Law and prejudice were set on dealing with a group that by any standards had bizarre beliefs and unlawful practices. But even for them, where should allegiance to the state have ended and civil disobedience have begun?
These are touchy subjects—they unsettle us and make us uneasy. For most want to live in harmony with others, and that includes the civil majority that legislates. But when laws impinge on religious freedom and aspects of conscience, what then? Or is it being overly individualistic to insist on having one’s own religious liberty at the presumed expense of societal compliance and conformity?
It is easy to see how quickly religious freedom questions coupled with civil disobedience can be seen as antigovernment and unpatriotic, with adherents being termed rebels and traitors.
But the sacrifice of liberty, especially religious liberty, rips the soul from the human heart. Meeting violence with violence is not the answer. For in the words of Jesus, we are called to seek first the kingdom of God, not the kingdoms of this world.
Footnotes
1 Nirmal Kumar Bose, ed., Selections From Gandhi (Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Pub. House, 1948), p. 225.
2 Ibid., p. 220.
3 Ibid., p. 238.
4 Ibid., p. 225.
5 Ibid., p. 226.
6 From Civil Disobedience, http://sunsite.berkely.edu/
Literature/Thoreau/CivilDisobedience.html
7 From Letter From Birmingham Jail, http://www.
stanford.edu/group/king/frequentdocs/birmingham.html.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend