Once upon a time, “civil disobedience” referred to refusing to obey unjust laws, either by doing things that the law unjustly forbids, or by refusing to do something that the law unjustly requires.
You all know such incidents as Indians protesting the British salt monopoly (and pressing their demand for an end to colonialism) by making their own salt, Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, and the like.
But what’s happening now bears no resemblence to these historic protests against injustice. In the news today (my husband watches the morning news while ironing, but, of course, I can only link to a website), it was reported that Chicago’s own rabble-rousing Fr. Michael Pfleger has called on all churches to “take congregations outside on Sunday, to interrupt traffic and make a statement about the police killings in Ferguson and New York.”
Tieing up traffic is not “civil disobedience” in its original meaning. There is nothing unjust about traffic laws that forbid people from randomly walking in the street. This also bears no resemblence to an organized protest intended to call others to support their cause — it’s far more likely that it’ll drive people away from the cause.
What this really indicates is that there is no simple, pat solution, and in any case, these “civic leaders” don’t have one on offer. All they have to offer is a method of nursing people’s anger. At best it redirects what otherwise might have been a violent response; at worse, it risks producing a violent response — by the protesters or by those angered by their disruptions.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In