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

[Darth Executor]

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.

No, you are even more wrong than I thought, as it would mean Brown v. Board of Education had jack to do with bus laws and thus no Supreme Court decision impacted the case.

[Obsidian]

If you don't see a connection between the two cases, you simply do not have a legal mind.

Getting beyond the Fourteenth Amendment, though, which does not seem to impress you, the bigger question is what divine authority did the government have to pass this law. And the answer is "none." Romans 13 talks about laws designed to punish evildoers. It says nothing about the "law" that Rosa Parks broke.

[Obsidian]

There is another passage where Jesus cites a law and specifically says that he is "free" to disobey it. But he obeys it anyway, to avoid causing problems:

Matthew 17
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

[Soyeong]

Legally, in Rome?

Of course.

[robrecht]

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:

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.

Systemic, rather than individualistic, definitions of racism are better in my opinion, because the reality of racial inequality (in America) is based on socital factors that have existed over many generations. It is not merely an individual sin; nor is it merely a group doctrine, but a larger societal problem.

[Obsidian]

Do you believe the owner of an accomodation has the right to tell you where to sit while using it?

If it were just the decision of a private owner, I would say yes. I am assuming, however, that the bus was publicly owned.

Even if it was privately owned, it is my understanding that the southern governments in all these states basically forced the private establishments to implement segregation. So none of it was truly free-market decision-making.

When it comes to the government, the Fourteenth Amendment and arguably the Bible prohibit the government from oppressing foreigners and former slaves, setting up diverse weights and measures, etc. Since I attribute all of the segregation to the government, that is why I condemn it. If a private business today wants to segregate the races, I think that should be allowed (although the government prohibits it).

[Darth Executor]

If you don't see a connection between the two cases, you simply do not have a legal mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browder_v._Gayle

This is the case that ended bus segregation.

Getting beyond the Fourteenth Amendment, though, which does not seem to impress you, the bigger question is what divine authority did the government have to pass this law. And the answer is "none." Romans 13 talks about laws designed to punish evildoers. It says nothing about the "law" that Rosa Parks broke.

Romans 13 states all authority is divine authority:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

So you'll have to ask God why He established a segregationist authority.

[Darth Executor]

If it were just the decision of a private owner, I would say yes. I am assuming, however, that the bus was publicly owned.

Even if it was privately owned, it is my understanding that the southern governments in all these states basically forced the private establishments to implement segregation. So none of it was truly free-market decision-making.

I deleted that post since I wasn't sure about ownership myself, but I too assumed it was at least part public owned. In which case the government would have a say in how it was run and where you could sit.

When it comes to the government, the Fourteenth Amendment and arguably the Bible prohibit the government from oppressing foreigners and former slaves, setting up diverse weights and measures, etc. Since I attribute all of the segregation to the government, that is why I condemn it. If a private business today wants to segregate the races, I think that should be allowed (although the government prohibits it).

The 14th amendment is vague enough that it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Today, for example, it is interpreted as mandating gay marriage. Its vagueness makes its use as a hard reference point difficult.

[Obsidian]

Romans 13 states all authority is divine authority:

Revelation 13:2

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

[37818]

Revelation 13:2

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And his authority still requires God permitting it. (Romans 13:1) You do agree with that?

[Darth Executor]

Revelation 13:2

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Please keep all apocalyptic literature out of this thread.

[Soyeong]

If Paul was talking about church authority, this makes a whole lot more sense to me. Of course, we'd then all be in noncompliance of that command since none of us can possibly obey all authorities in the myriad number of different Christian sects. But at least it makes sense than if he was referring to secular authorities (at the time, there was only one church authority -- the apostolic church authority). But if he was talking about church authority, then Christians need to stop brow beating other Christians with it to get them to submit to secular authority.

I think he's talking about obeying the authorities in you congregation and those who are authorities in the group that you congregation belongs to, not authorities in other congregations that you don't belong to. Paul answered to the Jerusalem Council.

[robrecht]

Please keep all apocalyptic literature out of this thread.

It is important to recognize differing attitudes toward governmental and other forms of authority in the Bible. Think also of the prophetic critique of governments for injustice.

[37818]

Romans 13 is talking about obeying the synagogue authorities, not the civil authorities. Paul is still talking about how we should behave within a community and doesn't change subjects.

No. It (Romans 13:) explicitly refers to governmental authority. The racial segregation laws were an abuse of power. Rose understanding this, it would have been a sin for her not to have done as she did.

[Andius]

Revelation 13:2

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Let's quote some more relevant verses shall we?

John 19:11

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."