By which I mean civil disobedience, the act of deliberately breaking the law in order to change a law, or even just to advance a principle.
One of the most famous acts of civil disobedience was the Boston Tea Party but more recently the largest civil disobedience in Canada occurred when 200 people protested against the Keystone pipeline.
Is it justifiable to break the law in order to change the law?
Well, if it's for religion or any belief like that, I would probably say no. But if it's a moral no-no or extremely harmful to the environment or economy, yes.
It'd deppend too much on the law, and how your beliefs would actually help or change the principle. By your examples, I would say yes. By religious or purely naive beliefs, I would say no to an extent.
I would say no to breaking an established law. However, if you can argue that said law is unconstitutional because it imposes undue restraint upon your religion, you could get the law repealed or revised.
This is based off of US law. This is the only type of law I have studied as of yet. I am not familiar with other country's laws, I apologize if there are any discrepancies for what I say because of that.
You would have to argue this under the First Amendment Establishment and/or Free Exercise Clauses. If you can prove that the law does not have a secular purpose and is established just to hamper the exercise of your religion, it will be ruled unconstitutional.
However, there might be cases where said law will stay in place. Take this for example.. The ancient Mayans practiced human sacrifice as part of their religious ceremonies. If this practice was here today as a religion, the law in question would have to be kept in place because the state has enough compelling interest to protect the lives of the humans that would be sacrificed.
Compelling interest is the only thing the state has for determining if an established law places undue pressure on a religion. It might pass a three point test for whether it has a secular purpose, has compelling interest, and does not place excessive restraint on said religion.
I hope that this can clear up any questions on this issue. It is illegal to break a law according to your beliefs, and also, it is unwise to do so because you will have to fight from behind (as a criminal from the law's perspective) instead of having equal footing as the law (if you argue it as unconstitutional before breaking the law.)
By which I mean civil disobedience, the act of deliberately breaking the law in order to change a law, or even just to advance a principle.
Depends on the principle. If I'm a Neo-Nazi Skinhead fighting in the name of Mr Pencil-Moustache, I'll be condemned, because my principles will inevitably affect others negatively.
If I'm fighting against an authoritarian dictatorship like the citizens who rose in revolt during Arab Spring, why not?
Then again it raises a question on why the first would be frowned upon, but the latter supported.
On many views, an analysis of the justifiability of civil disobedience must consider not only the dissenter's particular action and its likely consequences, but also her motivation for engaging in this act of civil disobedience. Factors relevant to a disobedient's choice of action include: its illegality, its use as a last resort or first resort, any coordination with other dissenters, the likelihood of success, the directness or indirectness of the action, and the expected harm.
Factors relevant to motivation include: the merit or lack thereof in the dissenter's cause, her reasons for defending that cause, and her reasons for engaging in this form of protest.
In the end, I believe that it's not a generalizing statement for us to make, and we should examine on a case by case basis.
However, there might be cases where said law will stay in place. Take this for example.. The ancient Mayans practiced human sacrifice as part of their religious ceremonies. If this practice was here today as a religion, the law in question would have to be kept in place because the state has enough compelling interest to protect the lives of the humans that would be sacrificed.
I would disagree since technically it was not a ''law'' in Mayan society, but a tenet of religion, which are different things, even in a society where religion permeated the citizens' lives more than today. Mayan society had its own judicial system, with various punishments such as jail or slavery or property confiscation.
Sacrifice as you described however, was considered as a religious ritual, and not a punishment under the law.
Really just this... I mean, it depends on the extent of what the law is and the extent you go to break it. There isn't really a problem with gambling (aside from peoples' control on the concept), but if I know right there are laws against it.
It is usually best to make a hypothetical situation that is reasonable, but against the law, in order to change it... but sadly the ignorance can exceed logic and reason, and more drastic matters are taken.
Like the nationwide strike, and signs of protest because of the pensions concerned in the UK... and etc.
Government is there to serve the people. So, if the people have no use for a law then the Government should change the law. If the Government won't change the law, it's up to the people to abolish that Government and set up another Government.
Then again it raises a question on why the first would be frowned upon, but the latter supported.
This rests mainly on two things. Popular support of 1)the ideals being pushed and 2) the methodology of the resistance.
Sacrifice as you described however, was considered as a religious ritual, and not a punishment under the law.
True, but it seems the point being made is that if it were common among today's religions we would have a conflict between that and the laws against damage to humans. There would either need to be a change of this practice or an opposition to the current laws.
Government is there to serve the people. So, if the people have no use for a law then the Government should change the law. If the Government won't change the law, it's up to the people to abolish that Government and set up another Government.
Why should it be allowed if the law in question is minor? For example, where I come from, we can't chew gum. Doesn't benefit us, but it doesn't give us a valid excuse to just rebel.
2) the methodology of the resistance.
Well, Arab Spring was also waged with armed violence, but the insurgents in Kashmir are roundly condemned by world opinion even when they fight against the Indian/Pakistani occupiers.
True, but it seems the point being made is that if it were common among today's religions we would have a conflict between that and the laws against damage to humans. There would either need to be a change of this practice or an opposition to the current laws.
Not disputing that. Just a history buff who gets **** about slight mistakes.
Why should it be allowed if the law in question is minor? For example, where I come from, we can't chew gum. Doesn't benefit us, but it doesn't give us a valid excuse to just rebel.
Do a majority of people want the law changed? If so, does the Government refuse to listen to the people and change the law?
We would want the law changed if possible and Thr government doesn't want to. But it isn't a biggie, so why should we be allowed as you said, to abolish the government over such a simple issue? I don't think it gives us a right at all.
In the US we have the ability to change the law through democratic means. We secure enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot, and then on the next voting cycle the measure goes to vote. If it's voted in by popular vote then we bring it into law.
If a government doesn't listen to its people then what is the point of it? I'm not saying you have to abolish it, its obviously your choice. I'm just saying if a government stops listening to its people then why keep it?
Oh it does listen to us ln most things, and many of the times when it doesn't listen, it's because it has thiught through much more than us on the issue.
