A New Kind of Prison (Written 2008, but archived)
[Kathy made some good points, so I changed some of the text]
In 1846, the same year Brigham Young and the Mormons were kicked out of the United States for practicing their religion, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because the government used the money to fund war and slavery. Thoreau spent a night in jail.
His act of civil disobedience influenced Ghandi and later Martin Luther King Jr.
The government does not always do right, and when it is on the wrong path, it is our duty to refuse obedience to wickedness.
This has led me to rethink the sermon on the mount in a political light:
If the taxes you pay fund war, you are guilty.
If you live in excess, and another goes without, you are guilty.
If you vote in ignorance, you are guilty.
If you buy a product for less than it is worth, and sell it for more than it is worth to get gain at the expense of the poor, you are an adulterer and have turned away from God to whore after money.
Those are all that I can think of for now. If you can think of any more, please leave them in a comment.
The Savior's remarks originally inflamed the anger of the multitude, and drove the learned and rich to murder him. They have lost some of their power through translation and over-familiarity.
If your opinions don't offend, or if the world does not think you crazy, it's likely your opinions merely echo someone else's thought, who is happy to have you a prisoner of ignorance within your own mind.
Thoreau said of this imprisonment:
"I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."
In 1846, the same year Brigham Young and the Mormons were kicked out of the United States for practicing their religion, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because the government used the money to fund war and slavery. Thoreau spent a night in jail.
His act of civil disobedience influenced Ghandi and later Martin Luther King Jr.
The government does not always do right, and when it is on the wrong path, it is our duty to refuse obedience to wickedness.
This has led me to rethink the sermon on the mount in a political light:
If the taxes you pay fund war, you are guilty.
If you live in excess, and another goes without, you are guilty.
If you vote in ignorance, you are guilty.
If you buy a product for less than it is worth, and sell it for more than it is worth to get gain at the expense of the poor, you are an adulterer and have turned away from God to whore after money.
Those are all that I can think of for now. If you can think of any more, please leave them in a comment.
The Savior's remarks originally inflamed the anger of the multitude, and drove the learned and rich to murder him. They have lost some of their power through translation and over-familiarity.
If your opinions don't offend, or if the world does not think you crazy, it's likely your opinions merely echo someone else's thought, who is happy to have you a prisoner of ignorance within your own mind.
Thoreau said of this imprisonment:
"I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."
I can definitely see where you're going with this, and I agree that we should resist politics that prey on the less fortunate. But I wonder if these blanket statements don't oversimplify the issue, which actually weakens the point.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we live in the sort of world where someone will always starve. I'm not saying we should just ignore poverty because it's inevitable; I'm saying that it's not fair to lump people who volunteer in soup kitchens and people who don't give a damn into the same category, simply because people continue to starve.
Of course, it's possible that such ultimatums can be argued for, on the basis that inevitability does not excuse the problem. That's true, but in one case, logic does. Everyone votes in some sort of ignorance, as we cannot be omniscient. What level of ignorance could be tolerated before one would be charged with treason?