Did Rosa Parks sin by refusing to go to the back of the bus?

[robrecht]

He could (and probably did, the Romans were quite discriminating, even if their racial categorization was different from ours) tell people to obey racist laws without endorsing racism.

Christians in first century Rome were not in a position to abolish slavery, but we were in a position to help bring about greater civil rights in 20th century America. Times change.

[robrecht]

The word racism has no meaning to me since it's used in a thousand ways by a thousand people with a thousand agendas, so I can't really answer the question. But the issue of who is human and in what capacity has popped up in the past.

There are plenty of meaningful definitions of racism for you to choose from. Why choose to be blind to its reality?

[Obsidian]

The Supreme Court ultimately said that segregation of public facilities was unconstitutional, so Rosa Parks was not breaking any law.

[Darth Executor]

There are plenty of meaningful definitions of racism for you to choose from. Why choose to be blind to its reality?

You're the one asking the question, why don't you tell me what you mean by it.

[Darth Executor]

The Supreme Court ultimately said that segregation of public facilities was unconstitutional, so Rosa Parks was not breaking any law.

The SC had previously said otherwise, and Rosa's act was before that decision. At the time it was illegal. Also, IIRC they never actually charged her with breaking the segregation law per se, but with civil disobedience, probably related to ignoring the driver's command, and she pleaded guilty.

[Darth Executor]

Christians in first century Rome were not in a position to abolish slavery,

No but they could not own slaves themselves. Which... Paul never told them not to. Quite the opposite, actually, he told the Christian slaves of Christians to stop crying about it.

but we were in a position to help bring about greater civil rights in 20th century America. Times change.

Not relevant to the quesiton at hand, which is specifically about an instance of lawbreaking.

[Manw� S�limo]

If you're talking about the Letter of Philemon and the story of the runaway slave Onesimus, this video by Ben Witherington succinctly describes that Paul was actually passive aggressively and yet clearly demanding that Philemon grant Onesimus his liberty (skip to 42:18):

[Obsidian]

they never actually charged her with breaking the segregation law per se, but with civil disobedience, probably related to ignoring the driver's command, and she pleaded guilty.

Makes no difference. It's all the same thing.

What the Supreme Court said the first time was erroneous. What the Supreme Court said the second time was correct. And Rosa Parks was correct.

[Darth Executor]

If you're talking about the Letter of Philemon and the story of the runaway slave Onesimus, this video by Ben Witherington succinctly describes that Paul was actually passive aggressively and yet clearly demanding that Philemon grant Onesimus his liberty (skip to 42:18):

My memory made it sound more dramatic than it actually was but I was thinking about Ephesians 6:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

[robrecht]

You're the one asking the question, why don't you tell me what you mean by it.

I would define racism as beliefs, attitudes, or societal conditions that encourage or result in poor treatment or systemic inequality of any race of people.

[Darth Executor]

Makes no difference. It's all the same thing.

Of course it does. They specifically avoided litigating it on a racial basis because Rosa Parks & Co. Wanted to challenge segregation laws and the authorities wanted to avoid having them challenged due to Rosa's status in the community. The SC decision had jack all to do with her case.

What the Supreme Court said the first time was erroneous. What the Supreme Court said the second time was correct. And Rosa Parks was correct.

That's not how it works.

[robrecht]

No but they could not own slaves themselves. Which... Paul never told them not to. Quite the opposite, actually, he told the Christian slaves of Christians to stop crying about it.

Not relevant to the quesiton at hand, which is specifically about an instance of lawbreaking.

Like I said, times change. Those who do not choose to ignore the reality of racism have no trouble recognizing the relevance.

[Darth Executor]

I would define racism as a belief, attitude, or societal conditions that encourage or result in poor treatment or systemic inequality of any race of people.

It's still a bit vague, but for the most part my belief in whether what you described is right or wrong depends on particular circumstances. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd request that you start a separate thread in Civics.

[Obsidian]

According to Wikipedia, the Rosa Parks incident happened one year after Brown v. Board of Education. So you are even more wrong than I thought.

[Darth Executor]

Like I said, times change. Those who do not choose to ignore the reality of racism have no trouble recognizing the relevance.

I don't ignore the reality of racism. Not at all. I recognize that all people are racist (according to certain definitions, including my preferred one, which I will quote below) to some extent, that racism is more acceptable if you're not white, as well as the existance of a number of other problems related to racism. I do deny the mainstream narrative pushed by progressives with regards to who the main victims of racism are though, but that's not a denial of the relevance of racism. You think I'm handwaving but the problem I outlined earlier is quite real. For example, the dictionary.com (and mine in bold) definition of racism is:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

But neither the bold part nor the rest actually come up all that often when we discuss racism. It certainly didn't come up in your definition. That's because the word has, as I said, a thousand meanings depending on who you ask. Sometimes people don't even know what racism is but scream loudly that they oppose it. As far as I can tell racism is a modern placeholder for one of Satan's heads in the progressive religion.