Using Illegal Means for Righteous Activism
orphan crow. Just to have people's opinions on this. I guess I started to think about it when I was listening to a youtube video and the person recorded a conversation with the US Legal department and they were in California where I know it is illegal to record without the second person's consent and well over the phone to it would be a federal crime as well. Some of the comments made it sound like there was nothing wrong with what they did, I am sure they meant by talking to the Legal Department but I thought how can someone be proud of another person who broke the law. So I wanted to get people's opinion on this.
JD: how can someone be proud of another person who broke the law.
Here are a few thoughts you might want to ponder, thoughts expressed by extraordinary people that thought deeply about this subject and lived their lives accordingly:
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
“When EVIL men make bad laws, righteous men disobey them." ― Pastor Butch Paugh
“Disobedience to rigid laws is a revolutionary act.” ― Lailah Gifty Akita
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” ― John F. Kennedy Jr.
I don't know about you, but I am very proud of all of these people, the inspiring words they spoke and the courageous actions they took. Countless others, mostly unknown and unsung individuals, have been inspired by their acts of integrity and courage and have followed suite. I know I have been one.
JP but the problem is what is the unjust law. Is it an unjust law not to hack into someone else's computer system. Is it an unjust law to not record someone if it is illegal where you live. I don't think that those are unjust laws, those are laws.
It is not the same by saying that African American's can only sit in the back of a bus. That is an unjust law because you have narrowed it to affect only a limited class of people. But what I am talking about is breaking neutral laws that affect everyone no matter who you are.
I don't think that the ends justify the means. You may think so but I don't.
JD, one of the things I have learned is that being able to accept and deal with ambiguity and uncertainty is a sign of a mentally healthy worldview. In contrast, black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking associated with the blind acceptance and following of rules is in fact associated with mental illness.
You might want to give that some thought.
The world is a messy place.
I really dont care what happens to the Watchtower Corporation. If someone breaks the law and gets their super secret data base or if someone records them to show how truly awful they are, they deserve whatever happens to them.
I wouldn't hack, but I would record. When you are shitty to people they will be shitty back. You know the reap/ sow scripture.
Wait JP are you saying that viewing the law as black and white is a sign of not being mentally healthy. I will have to disagree with you on that one. Not trying to justify breaking the law is not a mental health issue it is being a law abiding citizen.
JD: JP are you saying that viewing the law as black and white is a sign of not being mentally healthy.
No, I am reporting the consensus of mental health professionals worldwide: a black and white worldview is not mentally healthy! It does not matter if it's about the law, customs, music ... whatever.
Rigid, inflexible thinking leads to mental health issues. It is positively correlated with depression, anxiety and Borderline Personality Disorder.
Wait JP are you saying....John Davis
Richard Oliver snuck in the back door under a new name.
JD- Wait JP are you saying that viewing the law as black and white is a sign of not being mentally healthy. I will have to disagree with you on that one. Not trying to justify breaking the law is not a mental health issue it is being a law abiding citizen.
Does this mean you would follow the laws of your country no matter what they are?
Let's say you were driving an injured person to hospital who was bleeding to death. Would you take the time to put their seatbelt on , even if it meant injuring them more? What if the only place you could stop to get them into the hospital meant illegally parking?
What about being called up to serve in the front line during a war, with no options for alternative service, would you do that?
Do you think the Watchtower has always been law abiding and will not deliberately break the law in the future?
I had said that we all break laws from time to time such as speeding and other issues but I wouldn't willfully break a felony at least in my country of the US.
For your first point about the seatbelt. I would buckle them up if I could, if it was too dangerous for me or caused them more injury I wouldn't even drive them in my car because if I buckled them up or not it would still be too dangerous and put them in more harm's way. I am not sure what you mean by parking illegally, I guess by leaving my car in an illegal zone for a few moments till I get some help from the staff and get back into the car, then I guess you are correct I would be willing to break that law.
Your question on military service, I have never thought about that but I guess because it would be a major violation of the law then I would comply with the requirement to serve.
I never stated that Watchtower has never or never will break the law. I think they have broken the law both in the USA and around the world. And it is up to the governments of those countries to decide how they want to prosecute them. And whether the people who had actually committed those crimes were willing to go to prison for their crimes or not was their own decision.
I think it is a fallacy to correlate committing a felony or a federal crime with that of not putting someone seat belt on or parking illegally. It is not like there is a state law that says well you're not allowed to record a person without their permission only if you are recording a JW Elder, no the law is that you're not allowed to record someone without their permission under any circumstances. It is are you willing to obey the law no matter what your motive may be either good or bad.
Even on this site a few years ago there are about 30 plus pages of people encouraging the group Anonymous to try and hack and retrieve the paedophile database of Watchtower. In fact, some were even trying to give them suggestions or beg them to commit a very serious crime. Annonymous may be considered in that instance as a hero organization but by the US Government and most Western Nations they are considered a Terrorist organization that has the capabilities of killing more people than has ever been killed by any other terrorist act in the history. Was that the way that the information was actually put into someone else's hands by the use of a criminal organization or by legal means by going through the courts or by the use of Legislation that put into effect the ARC.
If a family member is killed by someone, you may feel like going and hunting that person down and killing themselves in vengeance but is that right, is that the moral thing to do? No. The right thing the moral thing and the legal thing is to let the law take care of it. Even if the person gets off, you will be justifiably angry and hurt but does that give you the license to seek vengeance on your own? No. In fact, if you do seek vengeance guess who will be spending the rest of their life in a 5X10? That will be you.