[trebb]

There are "Just" edicts and "Unjust" edicts. Even in the military, where a commanding officer has pretty much full control of, and responsibility for you, it is your duty to resist orders which you know are illegal. If a respected Judge and a good deal of the population consider this to be against the Constitution, there is nothing inherently wrong with attempting to defy it if you are also willing to suffer the consequences of the law for trying to resist the edict. Part of changing things is to take a stand, in defiance of what you consider wrong, in order to garner attention and support. Otherwise Rosa Parks would have wasted her time and civil rights would be a dead issue. Inaction in defiance of what you consider to be a bad "legal" decision is not as bad as taking destructive action as part of your statement. Ghandi is revered for his passive resistance, leftist groups are "justified" in damaging property for "the right cause", and Judge Moore is castigated for doing what he thinks is right. If you want to explore one aspect, be open to exploring all aspects. otherwise you have a doctrine instead of an argument.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You can't compare Roy Moore's acts as a government official establishing his sect of Christianity as the "official" religion of Alabama in defiance of court orders to the civil disobedience of Rosa Parks or Ghandi in seeking political and economic rights for oppressed people.

And don't even try to pretend that a prohibition on government facility support for faith is repression.