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

[hedrick]

There's an interesting possible answer to the original question, which is that Rosa didn't actually violate any law. Most people consider Marbury vs. Madison to be valid law. But it establishes judicial review on the grounds that a law that conflicts with the Constitution isn't a law, and thus the courts can't enforce it. But if unconstitutional laws aren't actually laws, then I would argue that violating them doesn't violate Paul's instructions.

There are critical differences between the US and ancient Rome. We assume that our government is limited, that citizens have rights, and that there are processes to enforce those rights. That inherently involves our people in the political process in a way that Paul and his readers were not involved. It is part of the duty of a US citizen to protest in ways allowed by our political system when the government overreaches. I believe that this includes not obeying unconstitutional laws. To avoid chaos, there are principles not included in the Constitution, but which most people involved in civil disobedience have followed. That includes an expectation of arrest. (Thus I would not make the same justification of people using violence to protest. Even if the thing they are protesting against isn't a valid law, the violence is still illicit.) As far as I know Rosa followed them. Note that Parks act was planned with the NAACP with the specific intent of creating a test case, which would permit judicial review. Without some case like Rosa's, there would have been no way to get review by the courts. In some sense judicial review assumes that some people will not obey laws of questionable constitutionality. I doubt that Paul was thinking of people who were trying to get violations of the Roman constitution in front of the Supreme Court of the Empire.

Calvin and others considered how to deal with unjust governments. They weren't in a situation where judicial review would be likely to be useful. Instead, they decided that it was the job of "lesser magistrates" to deal with unjust kings, princes, etc.

Paul was surely not thinking of situations like the US or 16th Cent Europe, where Christians had power, and thus an authority to make sure it was used properly.

[Truthseeker]

You left out the Book of Judges. Why? Israel went through a period of kritarchy (strictly speaking, of course, "rule by judges" is fundamentally different from any form of government as that term is usually understood).

Oops, I think I should make it clear that the "you" in the quotation above should be addressed to Obsidian.

[Christianbookworm]

"Building codes"?

You left out the Book of Judges. Why? Israel went through a period of kritarchy (strictly speaking, of course, "rule by judges" is fundamentally different from any form of government as that term is usually understood).

The verse about having a parapet on the roof. Ancient equivalent of having a railing on a balcony.

[Truthseeker]

That's for ancient Israel! Though you could gain some principles form it(building codes, justice for the innocent, no oppression, etc.). there's a lot that only applied to them(ceremonial law, sacrifice system).

"Building codes"?

You left out the Book of Judges. Why? Israel went through a period of kritarchy (strictly speaking, of course, "rule by judges" is fundamentally different from any form of government as that term is usually understood).

[Obsidian]

"no oppression" <-- That's the big one I was talking about.

[Christianbookworm]

Read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Those books discuss what government is supposed to do.

That's for ancient Israel! Though you could gain some principles form it(building codes, justice for the innocent, no oppression, etc.). there's a lot that only applied to them(ceremonial law, sacrifice system).

[Obsidian]

Read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Those books discuss what government is supposed to do.

[Truthseeker]

What is Caesar's due?

[robrecht]

I'm very uncomfortable with people almost nonchalantly claiming that Rosa Parks was appointed by God for some paradigm shifting task. Maybe she was, but you know what? There's no way we can prove that. It may be that she was just acting out of her own will (for better or for worse).

Or maybe she was just tired and frustrated and just didn't give a damn any more. Personally, I'd rather see God as eminently and immanently active in those situations.

And in any case, I don't see God as being especially concerned with civil rights. God's prime directive seems to be getting us humans to be His willing servants. Everything else is secondary. Indirectly connected, maybe, but secondary. Civil rights as such is a human sociological concern.

I think God very much wants us to treat others the way we would like to be treated. If I were tired and frustrated at the end of a long day of hard work, I probably would not want some bus driver to make me change my seat to accommodate someone else based merely upon their race.

[Obsidian]

I think the Lord of the Rings passage is flawed because we are not obligated to obey wicked laws. In fact, I don't see anything in the Bible telling us otherwise. Romans 13 says to give Caesar what he is due, not to give Caesar whatever he asks.

[Manw� S�limo]

I'm very uncomfortable with people almost nonchalantly claiming that Rosa Parks was appointed by God for some paradigm shifting task. Maybe she was, but you know what? There's no way we can prove that. It may be that she was just acting out of her own will (for better or for worse). And in any case, I don't see God as being especially concerned with civil rights. God's prime directive seems to be getting us humans to be His willing servants. Everything else is secondary. Indirectly connected, maybe, but secondary. Civil rights as such is a human sociological concern.

Anyway.

I think Parks broke the law and had to suffer the consequences for it. That's how justice is done. But I also think its entirely proper that she's honored for it today. Let me give an incredibly nerdy example that everyone will surely despise and roll their eyes at, but whatever. In the third book of "The Lord of the Rings", there is a situation somewhat similar to the Rosa Parks incident. Here's the McNugget sized summary of it.

Minas Tirith, the only significant and remaining bastion of Men since the fall of its sister city Osgiliath, is being besieged by Mordor. The steward of the city, Denethor, has fallen into despair and seeing no point in fighting a war that will, in his mind, with 100% certainty end in defeat for the Good Guys, decides to commit murder-suicide by laying himself and his unconscious son, Faramir, down on a bier and ordering his servants to light it up with their torches. Beregond, a rank-and-file soldier in the Tower Guard who is profoundly loyal to Faramir, decides to break several laws to prevent this even greater evil - 1) he abandons his post in the middle of a war 2) he disobeys Denethor's direct orders by barring his passage into the room where he intends to commit the murder-suicide (Denethor, as Steward of the City, has absolute right to give such an order) and 3) kills several of Denethor's servants that try to subdue Beregond into submission:

‘Stay! Stay!’ cried Gandalf, springing forward to the stone stair before the door. ‘Stay this madness!’

For there were the servants of Denethor with swords and torches in their hands; but alone in the porch upon the topmost step stood Beregond, clad in the black and silver of the Guard; and he held the door against them. Two of them had already fallen to his sword, staining the hallows with their blood; and the others cursed him, calling him outlaw and traitor to his master.

Even as Gandalf and Pippin ran forward, they heard from within the house of the dead the voice of Denethor crying: ‘Haste, haste! Do as I have bidden! Slay me this renegade! Or must I do so myself?’ Thereupon the door which Beregond held shut with his left hand was wrenched open, and there behind him stood the Lord of the City, tall and fell; a light like flame was in his eyes, and he held a drawn sword.

Fast forward to the end of the War of the Ring. The Ring is destroyed, the Free People's are triumphant, and Aragorn assumes his rightful place as King of Gondor. With the war over, King Elessar now has the duty of running the place and dispensing justice and praise to his subjects. Eventually, the case of Beregond is heard.

Aragorn doesn't gloss over the fact that Beregond broke the law. He is still punished for it, but because of the circumstances, it's a punishment that's actually a mercy and a reward.

Rosa Parks broke the law. Rosa Parks broke a stupid law and is rightly honored for it. I'm not sure how God will deal with her on the final day, but if she is punished for it, I feel it will be a similar punishment to that of Beregond.

[Cow Poke]

America has a political process to determine just that. Barring a higher authority interfering I believe it should be followed.

Our elected officials do not necessarily vote "the will of the people" -- in our representative republic. And I get sick of hearing political hacks telling us "the American people want...." as though they actually know.

[Truthseeker]

Whether or not "the will of the people" is a concept with which to make our political arrangements, that does not matter to the question whether Rosa sinned by refusing to move or moving back. We all are sinners and the will of the people, whatever the best way to determine that, is likely to be sinful also.

[Darth Executor]

So how, in your view, do we determine the "will of the people"?

America has a political process to determine just that. Barring a higher authority interfering I believe it should be followed.

[Obsidian]

I personally do not believe that the will of the people is a legitimate basis upon which to make laws. It doesn't matter if the majority wanted to oppress the blacks.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.