SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 3:53 PM

Religious Leaders Warn of Civil Disobedience

Eve Conant

They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

What does noncompliance look like? Nonviolent civil disobedience. "Dr. King was very clear about nonviolence and we are committed to nonviolence,” said Robert George, drafting committee member and jurisprudence professor at Princeton University. He listed some examples of what religious civil disobedience might look like, such as a pharmacist quitting before providing abortion drugs or a physician changing jobs before performing an abortion or taking part in an assisted suicide. “There are limits to what can be asked of people,” said George, who was flanked by 15 religious leaders, including the Archdioceses of Washington and Philadelphia and evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Tony Perkins.

Advertisement

Addressed not only to Christians, but to President Obama, Congress, and civil authorities, the treatise will be available online for individuals to sign as well. When asked whether nonpayment of taxes would be an acceptable form of protest, George, who is also a lawyer, said he was currently representing a West Virginia taxpayer who is refusing to pay the small percentage of her bill that might go toward state-funded abortions (“Litigation is still pending,” said George). Institutions were also called on to participate in the civil disobedience if, for example, if a Catholic hospital is under pressure to provide services that go against Catholic beliefs. Although conscience protections do exist for many institutions already, there are areas, cited on Friday, such as when the Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services, rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

According to the Declaration, “We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.” Yet similar documents, such as last year’s Evangelical Manifesto, have been unveiled with great fanfare but little consequence. Civil disobedience, especially giving up a job, is a lot to ask in the current economy and is a hard notion, even for some signers of the Declaration.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council tells NEWSWEEK the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates. “I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

Tag(s): ,
You must be a registered user to comment. Click here to register. Already a user? Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Davole (November 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM)

Acmacho -

Yes, these pro-lifers probably would condone "War" if it was waged to protect innocent civilians from severe oppression, gross intimidation, torture, rape, and murder!

Is your mental ability so limited that you are unable to understand that protecting innocent persons from death DOES IN FACT protect the sanctity of human life?

Now is that too difficult for you to understand?


Posted By: Acmacho (November 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM)

Do these pro-lifers condone "War". War does not protect the sanctity of life so by their same reasoning, they should be against war. It is evident that they are walking the walk and just using Christianity to justify there prejudices. Jesus would never have condemned anyone for their preferences, unlike these hypocritical blasphemers who abuse the name of Jesus Christ.


Posted By: Davole (November 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM)

GNSS -

Are you asking me to provide proof that the current administration has a "sinister agenda," and to provide examples?

Although there are many examples evident within this government's Power Grab Scheme masquerading as a Healthcare Plan, I’ll limit my response to the confines of this actual thread regarding the abortion provision.

The main objection cited by the clergy who have signed that Manifesto is the inclusion of abortion in the over 2000 page so-called healthcare plan. The proposal which was narrowly adopted in the House originally included abortion provisions, then they were excluded, only to be included at a later date, and then excluded again at an even later date. That same sinister method to promote Obama’s sinister agenda will probably ensue with the Senate proposal. And there is no guarantee that the issue of abortion won’t be included in the final bill, despite any sleazy orchestrated denunciations in order to achieve a vote of acceptance.

You ask - “What proof is there that the health care bill restricts any personal liberties?”

The mere fact that the proposal would contain over 2000 pages of purposely vague and ambiguous but legalese language is a perfectly constructed Trojan Horse to introduce any intended restrictions to your and also other citizens’ personal liberties. And the fact that very few members of the House, and probably few members of the Senate have read and understand the plan in its entirety, is a blatant abdication of their responsibility regarding the imposition of a bill which will control one sixth of the American economy.

The application of so-called healthcare funds to fund abortions would only be the beginning of a slippery slope toward other related government mandates, such as compulsory requirement that all pharmacists dispense abortion drugs, that all doctors facilitate and participate in abortion procedures, and that Catholic hospitals provide abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia services which offend their religious principles.

You claim that you “believe politicians and the cleagy (did you mean clergy?) need to learn what the concepts of decency and morality are before telling anyone else how to behave." It may come as a surprise to you, but most clergy and some politicians do know the concepts of decency and morality, although some of them, due to human moral frailty, do not always demonstrate adherence to those principles.

I do believe that the religious leaders who have signed that Declaration boldly choose to profess allegiance to God, instead of cowardly complying with the dictates of the “anointed one,” Barack Obama, and his sinister mob of anti-American malcontents.

You ask for my opinion regarding whether individuals who advocate civil disobedience are decent - they are just as decent as Dr. Martin Luther King was when he advocated civil disobedience. I doubt that God would censure him for that determined principled stance!

In summary, it may be you who is “too far gone to recognize decent!”