http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/
Turns out it was actually a pretty interesting movie, about a debate team from a negro university in Texas in the thirties and their experiences.
In the final debate, one of the team pulls out a quote from Thomas Aquinas, about an "unjust law being no law at all".
My opponent says nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral. But there is no rule of law in the Jim Crow south. Not when Negroes are denied housing. Turned away from schools, hospitals. And not when we are lynched. St Augustine said, "An unjust law in no law at all.' Which means I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or civil disobedience. You should pray I choose the latter.
This is similar to the Martin Luther King quote, which was also based on Aquinas, that there are "just laws, and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
We seem to get a lot of people in our modern world who are very unhappy about things, although they maybe haven't thought the finer details through of what makes an unjust law. I'm thinking the kinds of anarchists, anti-globalisationists, protectionists, etc who violently protest at any event that features international leaders.
That's all well and good, if you believe that something is unjust than you should stand up and try and change things. However, if you do that you should be prepared to accept the consequences, because that is how civil disobedience works. The reason that nobody takes the anti-globalisation protestors and their ilk seriously is that don't have the courage of their convictions, they hide behind anonymity, they run away from their battles, they try to avoid the consequences of their actions.
That's my thought for the day.
Harry
No comments:
Post a Comment