Christian Leaders' Stance On Civil Disobedience Is Dangerous [Like Gandhi, Mandela, and MLK?]

LATimes ^ | November 28th 2009

[fr_freak]

Christian Leaders' Stance On Civil Disobedience Is Dangerous

That's right, Ice...Man. We ARE dangerous!

[JSDude1]

It is only dangerous if you believe that the Governement is your ultimate authority, (or if you are controlled by Satan).

The truth is that liberals thought they ‘had’ conservative Christians by trying to pass anti-Christian legislation which would violate individuals and the Churches’ collective rights, but the truth is that we do not answer to them, we answer to God where their “laws” violate His! ~The liberals now cry “unfair” foul..~ but they were the cheaters by passing such conscience violating laws in the first place!~

[phillyfanatic]

Pacifism is a real evil. Augustine advocated the Just War idea and I agree with him. Acts 10, Peter never told Cornelius to give us his soldiering, just to be born again and filled with the Spirit. Pacifists are in control of the Dem Party and put our nation at risk to the Islamofascists and the Koreans, Russians and Chinese once again. The only time I will be a pacifist is when Jesus is King over all the Earth. Then evil will be no more and no one will have to worry about dumbed down liberals who will get us all killed.

[Joe Boucher]

GOD, family, country, in that order.
In spite of many politicians wanting everyone to think govt. should be numero uno.

[TigersEye]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies citizens;

[chesley]

As I understand the Declaration, someone correct me if I'm wrong, they are simply saying that they will not cooperate with, or be involved with, abortion, and same-sex marriages, regardless of what the law requires them to do.

Now this is much simpler, and even more benign, than any left-wing civil disobedience, including many civil rights actions, where the goal was to disrupt and inconvenience until the other side gave in.

[timm22]

Any law that forces a private entity to commit an act that they believe is murder, or that forces a person to approve of someone else's personal relationships, is an unjust and illegitimate law.

Such a law deserves no more respect than laws dictating separate drinking fountains based on skin color.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“I recall William F. Buckley once said civil disobedience requires a decent nation to work, or something like that.”

Then if he was right, we’re toast. Doesn’t matter, I’ll go to prison, or face gunfire, before I’ll be forced to pay for an abortion.

[the invisib1e hand]

Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples:

Yeah, baby, and it's about freaking time.

[the invisib1e hand]

nah, we’re fine. He didn’t it “requires decent people,” only that it “requires a decent nation.” The current generations of Americans are like a really bad meal. But the body is fine.

[aSeattleConservative]

What does one communist (Mandela), one plagurizing, womanizing, communist sympathizer (King) and some skeleton- like East Indian have to do with Christianity and God’s laws?

[Zionist Conspirator]

So if moslem leaders also refuse to obey “gay rights” laws, what happens to “sharia” in the eyes of liberals?