Civil Disobedience
Essential Question
Are we obligated to always obey the law? If yes, why? If no, what criteria can be used to determine when disobedience is morally justified?
Opening
1. What word, phrase or line do we need to understand to get to the heart of Thoreaus work?
2. What does Thoreau want us to believe?
3. Do you like Thoreau’s viewpoint? Why or why not?
Core
1. Which did Thoreau think was most important--that government should increase the material equality between citizens, or that government should preserve the liberty of citizens? Relating this to other texts we have read, which do you think the 1776 generation (Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson) would say was most important?
2. Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson"That government is best which governs least.” In what other ways is Thoreau’s thinking similar to the thinking of those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
3. Who should ultimately have the final say: the individual, the citizens as a whole, or the government? Do we (as citizens) have responsibilities to society? What are they?
What are the limits that government should follow in intruding in our daily lives?
Can the government restrict your beliefs? Are there beliefs or actions that the government should try to alter? Should we be forced to pay taxes for other people’s needs?
4. In Walden, Thoreau said, “The government of the country I live in was not framed in after-dinner conversations over the wine.”
In Civil Disobedience, he says “I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men.”
Does he mean the same thing by “the country” in the first quote as he means by “a State” in the second quote? Explain differences between the meaning of a country, a nation, and a state.
5. In discussing the role of the individual, which quote best outlines your philosophy?
“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go. . .perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then , I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” Thoreau
“An individual must do what his city or country demands of him or he must change their view of what is just.” Socrates
“Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” Kennedy
What problems or limitations do you see with the various views?
What should be the relationship between the individual and the government?
What is the best reason (or what are the best reasons) for obeying the law? Are there some circumstances that outweigh these reasons? Is there ever a valid reason for breaking a law?
What should the consequences be for someone who breaks the law because of moral convictions?
Can you see yourself breaking a law in order to obey a higher principle? Explain
6. Can we ever reach the government that Thoreau advocates?
Are we a democracy in Thoreau’s eyes? In your eyes? In the textbook definition of democracy?
What areas of our government today would Thoreau attack? Defend
Are there leaders today that Thoreau would admire? Detest?
Closing
1. What are some situations today where people are working for changes in the name of justice (liberty) or social justice (equality)? To what extent should they go to accomplish their goal? What advice might Thoreau give them?
2. If Thoreau were alive today how would he judge America?
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
Study Guide Questions (printable version of the guide that is also available on Moodle)
Frederick Douglass Reading Schedule
Nov 19 Wed: Hand out Study Guide
Reading homework: Chapter 1: 17-21
Nov 20 Thurs: In class: Autobiographical paragraph on Moodle Write this today. Publish on Moodle during test tomorrow.
Reading homework: Chapter II-III: 22-31
Nov 21 Fri: TEST: pages XXIII-31
Reading homework: Chapter IV-V: 32-39
Extra Credit: Douglass discussion on OurSpace Forum Do this on your own time before Monday.
Nov 24 Mon: Reading
Reading homework: Chapter VI-VII: 40-48
Nov 25 Tues: TEST: pages 32 - 48
Reading homework: Chapter VIII-IX: 49-58
Nov 26 Wed (Early Release)
Dec1: Mon:
Reading homework: Chapter XI: 88-99
Dec 2: Tues:
Appendix: 100-106
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
A selection of poems by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Longfellow poems (printable PDF)
The Arrow and the Song
I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight.
I breathed a song into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For who has sight so keen and strong,
That it can follow the flight of song?
Long, long afterward, in an oak
I found the arrow, still unbroke;
And the song, from beginning to end,
I found again in the heart of a friend.
The Arsenal at Springfield
This is the Arsenal. From floor to ceiling,
Like a huge organ, rise the burnished arms;
But front their silent pipes no anthem pealing
Startles the villages with strange alarms.
Ah! what a sound will rise, how wild and dreary,
When the death-angel touches those swift keys
What loud lament and dismal Miserere
Will mingle with their awful symphonies
I hear even now the infinite fierce chorus,
The cries of agony, the endless groan,
Which, through the ages that have gone before us,
In long reverberations reach our own.
On helm and harness rings the Saxon hammer,
Through Cimbric forest roars the Norseman’s song,
And loud, amid the universal clamor,
O’er distant deserts sounds the Tartar gong.
I hear the Florentine, who from his palace
Wheels out his battle-bell with dreadful din,
And Aztec priests upon their teocallis
Beat the wild war-drums made of serpent’s skin;
The tumult of each sacked and burning village;
The shout that every prayer for mercy drowns;
The soldiers’ revels in the midst of pillage;
The wail of famine in beleaguered towns;
The bursting shell, the gateway wrenched asunder,
The rattling musketry, the clashing blade;
And ever and anon, in tones of thunder,
The diapason of the cannonade.
Is it, O man, with such discordant noises,
With such accursed instruments as these,
Thou drownest Nature’s sweet and kindly voices,
And jarrest the celestial harmonies?
Were half the power, that fills the world with terror,
Were half the wealth, bestowed on camps and courts,
Given to redeem the human mind from error,
There were no need of arsenals or forts:
The warrior’s name would be a name abhorred!
And every nation, that should lift again
Its hand against a brother, on its forehead
Would wear forevermore the curse of Cain!
Down the dark future, through long generations,
The echoing sounds grow fainter and then cease;
And like a bell, with solemn, sweet vibrations,
I hear once more the voice of Christ say, “Peace!”
Peace! and no longer from its brazen portals
The blast of War’s great organ shakes the skies!
But beautiful as songs of the immortals,
The holy melodies of love arise.
The Children’s Hour
Between the dark and the daylight,
When the night is beginning to lower,
Comes a pause in the day’s occupations,
That is known as the Children’s Hour.
I hear in the chamber above me
The patter of little feet,
The sound of a door that is opened,
And voices soft and sweet.
From my study I see in the lamplight,
Descending the broad hall stair,
Grave Alice, and laughing Allegra,
And Edith with golden hair.
A whisper, and then a silence:
Yet I know by their merry eyes
They are plotting and planning together
To take me by surprise.
A sudden rush from the stairway,
A sudden raid from the hall!
By three doors left unguarded
They enter my castle wall!
They climb up into my turret
O’er the arms and back of my chair;
If I try to escape, they surround me;
They seem to be everywhere.
They almost devour me with kisses,
Their arms about me entwine,
Till I think of the Bishop of Bingen
In his Mouse-Tower on the Rhine!
Do you think, O blue-eyed banditti,
Because you have scaled the wall,
Such an old mustache as I am
Is not a match for you all!
I have you fast in my fortress,
And will not let you depart,
But put you down into the dungeon
In the round-tower of my heart.
And there will I keep you forever,
Yes, forever and a day,
Till the walls shall crumble to ruin,
And moulder in dust away!
The Day is Done
The day is done, and the darkness
Falls from the wings of Night,
As a feather is wafted downward
From an eagle in his flight.
I see the lights of the village
Gleam through the rain and the mist,
And a feeling of sadness comes o’er me
That my soul cannot resist:
A feeling of sadness and longing,
That is not akin to pain,
And resembles sorrow only
As the mist resembles the rain.
Come, read to me some poem,
Some simple and heartfelt lay,
That shall soothe this restless feeling,
And banish the thoughts of day.
Not from the grand old masters,
Not from the bards sublime,
Whose distant footsteps echo
Through the corridors of Time.
For, like strains of martial music,
Their mighty thoughts suggest
Life’s endless toil and endeavor;
And to-night I long for rest.
Read from some humbler poet,
Whose songs gushed from his heart,
As showers from the clouds of summer,
Or tears from the eyelids start;
Who, through long days of labor,
And nights devoid of ease,
Still heard in his soul the music
Of wonderful melodies.
Such songs have power to quiet
The restless pulse of care,
And come like the benediction
That follows after prayer.
Then read from the treasured volume
The poem of thy choice,
And lend to the rhyme of the poet
The beauty of thy voice.
And the night shall be filled with music
And the cares, that infest the day,
Shall fold their tents, like the Arabs,
And as silently steal away.
The Fire of Driftwood
Devereux Farm, near Marblehead
We sat within the farm-house old,
Whose windows, looking o’er the bay,
Gave to the sea-breeze damp and cold,
An easy entrance, night and day.
Not far away we saw the port,
The strange, old-fashioned, silent town,
The lighthouse, the dismantled fort,
The wooden houses, quaint and brown.
We sat and talked until the night,
Descending, filled the little room;
Our faces faded from the sight,
Our voices only broke the gloom.
We spake of many a vanished scene,
Of what we once had thought and said,
Of what had been, and might have been,
And who was changed, and who was dead;
And all that fills the hearts of friends,
When first they feel, with secret pain,
Their lives thenceforth have separate ends,
And never can be one again;
The first slight swerving of the heart,
That words are powerless to express,
And leave it still unsaid in part,
Or say it in too great excess.
The very tones in which we spake
Had something strange, I could but mark;
The leaves of memory seemed to make
A mournful rustling in the dark.
Oft died the words upon our lips,
As suddenly, from out the fire
Built of the wreck of stranded ships,
The flames would leap and then expire.
And, as their splendor flashed and failed,
We thought of wrecks upon the main,
Of ships dismasted, that were hailed
And sent no answer back again.
The windows, rattling in their frames,
The ocean, roaring up the beach,
The gusty blast, the bickering flames,
All mingled vaguely in our speech;
Until they made themselves a part
Of fancies floating through the brain,
The long-lost ventures of the heart,
That send no answers back again.
O flames that glowed! O hearts that yearned!
They were indeed too much akin,
The drift-wood fire without that burned,
The thoughts that burned and glowed within.
The Landlord’s Tale (Paul Revere’s Ride)
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, “If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light, --
One, if by land, and two, if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm.”
Then he said, “Good night!” and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.
Meanwhile, his friend, through alley and street,
Wanders and watches with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.
Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry-chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade, --
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town,
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night-encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel’s tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, “All is well!”
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay, --
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide, like a bridge of boats.
Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse’s side,
Now gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry-tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry’s height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns!
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet:
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders, that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.
It was twelve by the village clock,
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer’s dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, blank and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadows brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket-ball.
You know the rest. In the books you have read,
How the British Regulars fired and fled, --
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farm-yard wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm, --
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
The Village Blacksmith
Under a spreading chestnut-tree
The village smithy stands;
The smith, a mighty man is he,
With large and sinewy hands;
And the muscles of his brawny arms
Are strong as iron bands.
His hair is crisp, and black, and long,
His face is like the tan;
His brow is wet with honest sweat,
He earns whate’er he can,
And looks the whole world in the face,
For he owes not any man.
Week in, week out, from morn till night,
You can hear his bellows blow;
You can hear him swing his heavy sledge,
With measured beat and slow,
Like a sexton ringing the village bell,
When the evening sun is low.
And children coming home from school
Look in at the open door;
They love to see the flaming forge,
And hear the bellows roar,
And catch the burning sparks that fly
Like chaff from a threshing-floor.
He goes on Sunday to the church,
And sits among his boys;
He hears the parson pray and preach,
He hears his daughter’s voice,
Singing in the village choir,
And it makes his heart rejoice.
It sounds to him like her mother’s voice,
Singing in Paradise!
He needs must think of her once more,
How in the grave she lies;
And with his haul, rough hand he wipes
A tear out of his eyes.
Toiling,--rejoicing,--sorrowing,
Onward through life he goes;
Each morning sees some task begin,
Each evening sees it close
Something attempted, something done,
Has earned a night’s repose.
Thanks, thanks to thee, my worthy friend,
For the lesson thou hast taught!
Thus at the flaming forge of life
Our fortunes must be wrought;
Thus on its sounding anvil shaped
Each burning deed and thought.
My Lost Youth
Often I think of the beautiful town
That is seated by the sea;
Often in thought go up and down
The pleasant streets of that dear old town,
And my youth comes back to me.
And a verse of a Lapland song
Is haunting my memory still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I can see the shadowy lines of its trees,
And catch, in sudden gleams,
The sheen of the far-surrounding seas,
And islands that were the Hesperides
Of all my boyish dreams.
And the burden of that old song,
It murmurs and whispers still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I remember the black wharves and the slips,
And the sea-tides tossing free;
And Spanish sailors with bearded lips,
And the beauty and mystery of the ships,
And the magic of the sea.
And the voice of that wayward song
Is singing and saying still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I remember the bulwarks by the shore,
And the fort upon the hill;
The sunrise gun with its hollow roar,
The drum-beat repeated o’er and o’er,
And the bugle wild and shrill.
And the music of that old song
Throbs in my memory still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I remember the sea-fight far away,
How it thunder’d o’er the tide!
And the dead sea-captains, as they lay
In their graves o’erlooking the tranquil bay
Where they in battle died.
And the sound of that mournful song
Goes through me with a thrill:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I can see the breezy dome of groves,
The shadows of Deering’s woods;
And the friendships old and the early loves
Come back with a Sabbath sound, as of doves
In quiet neighbourhoods.
And the verse of that sweet old song,
It flutters and murmurs still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
I remember the gleams and glooms that dart
Across the schoolboy’s brain;
The song and the silence in the heart,
That in part are prophecies, and in part
Are longings wild and vain.
And the voice of that fitful song
Sings on, and is never still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
There are things of which I may not speak;
There are dreams that cannot die;
There are thoughts that make the strong heart weak,
And bring a pallor into the cheek,
And a mist before the eye.
And the words of that fatal song
Come over me like a chill:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
Strange to me now are the forms I meet
When I visit the dear old town;
But the native air is pure and sweet,
And the trees that o’ershadow each well-known street,
As they balance up and down,
Are singing the beautiful song,
Are sighing and whispering still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
And Deering’s woods are fresh and fair,
And with joy that is almost pain
My heart goes back to wander there,
And among the dreams of the days that were
I find my lost youth again.
And the strange and beautiful song,
The groves are repeating it still:
‘A boy’s will is the wind’s will,
And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.’
Nature
As a fond mother, when the day is o’er,
Leads by the hand her little child to bed,
Half willing, half reluctant to be led,
And leave his broken playthings on the floor,
Still gazing at them through the open door,
Nor wholly reassured and comforted
By promises of others in their stead,
Which, though more splendid, may not please him more;
So Nature deals with us, and takes away
Our playthings one by one, and by the hand
Leads us to rest so gently, that we go
Scarce knowing if we wish to go or stay,
Being too full of sleep to understand
How far the unknown transcends the what we know.
There Was a Little Girl
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.
The Witnesses
In Ocean’s wide domains,
Half buried in the sands,
Lie skeletons in chains,
With shackled feet and hands.
Beyond the fall of dews,
Deeper than plummet lies,
Float ships, with all their crews,
No more to sink nor rise.
There the black Slave-ship swims,
Freighted with human forms,
Whose fettered, fleshless limbs
Are not the sport of storms.
These are the bones of Slaves;
They gleam from the abyss;
They cry, from yawning waves,
“We are the Witnesses!”
Within Earth’s wide domains
Are markets for men’s lives;
Their necks are galled with chains,
Their wrists are cramped with gyves.
Dead bodies, that the kite
In deserts makes its prey;
Murders, that with affright
Scare school-boys from their play!
All evil thoughts and deeds;
Anger, and lust, and pride;
The foulest, rankest weeds,
That choke Life’s groaning tide!
These are the woes of Slaves;
They glare from the abyss;
They cry, from unknown graves,
“We are the Witnesses!”
The Wreck of the Hesperus
It was the schooner Hesperus,
That sailed the wintry sea;
And the skipper had taken his little daughtr,
To bear him company.
Blue were her eyes as the fairy-flax,
Her cheeks like the dawn of day,
And her bosom white as the hawthorn buds,
That ope in the month of May.
The skipper he stood beside the helm,
His pipe was in his mouth,
And he watched how the veering flaw did blow
The smoke now West, now South.
Then up and spake an old Sailr,
Had sailed to the Spanish Main,
“I pray thee, put into yonder port,
For I fear a hurricane.
“Last night, the moon had a golden ring,
And to-night no moon we see!”
The skipper, he blew a whiff from his pipe,
And a scornful laugh laughed he.
Colder and louder blew the wind,
A gale from the Northeast,
The snow fell hissing in the brine,
And the billows frothed like yeast.
Down came the storm, and smote amain
The vessel in its strength;
She shuddered and paused, like a frighted steed,
Then leaped her cable’s length.
“Come hither! come hither! my little daughtԨҨr,
And do not tremble so;
For I can weather the roughest gale
That ever wind did blow.”
He wrapped her warm in his seaman’s coat
Against the stinging blast;
He cut a rope from a broken spar,
And bound her to the mast.
“O father! I hear the church-bells ring,
Oh say, what may it be?”
“‘T is a fog-bell on a rock-bound coast!” --
And he steered for the open sea.
“O father! I hear the sound of guns,
Oh say, what may it be?”
“Some ship in distress, that cannot live
In such an angry sea!”
“O father! I see a gleaming light,
Oh say, what may it be?”
But the father answered never a word,
A frozen corpse was he.
Lashed to the helm, all stiff and stark,
With his face turned to the skies,
The lantern gleamed through the gleaming snow
On his fixed and glassy eyes.
Then the maiden clasped her hands and prayed
That savd she might be;
And she thought of Christ, who stilled the wave
On the Lake of Galilee.
And fast through the midnight dark and drear,
Through the whistling sleet and snow,
Like a sheeted ghost, the vessel swept
Tow’rds the reef of Norman’s Woe.
And ever the fitful gusts between
A sound came from the land;
It was the sound of the trampling surf
On the rocks and the hard sea-sand.
The breakers were right beneath her bows,
She drifted a dreary wreck,
And a whooping billow swept the crew
Like icicles from her deck.
She struck where the white and fleecy waves
Looked soft as carded wool,
But the cruel rocks, they gored her side
Like the horns of an angry bull.
Her rattling shrouds, all sheathed in ice,
With the masts went by the board;
Like a vessel of glass, she stove and sank,
Ho! ho! the breakers roared!
At daybreak, on the bleak sea-beach,
A fisherman stood aghast,
To see the form of a maiden fair,
Lashed close to a drifting mast.
The salt sea was frozen on her breast,
The salt tears in her eyes;
And he saw her hair, like the brown sea-weed,
On the billows fall and rise.
Such was the wreck of the Hesperus,
In the midnight and the snow!
Christ save us all from a death like this,
On the reef of Norman’s Woe!
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
What is Thoreau talking about?
One way of thinking about what Thoreau is getting at is to think about the difference between “having” and “being.” Many Americans are led to believe the secret of happiness is to be found in what we have. Thoreau suggests this is a deception. We are made happy by what we become. The desire for money, power, reputation, fancy houses or cars (or carriages), expensive clothes keep people miserable.
He is also aware that many people are tormented by fears and anxieties. As an antidote to this, he suggests appreciation. We can’t experience fear and appreciation at the same time. When we stop to appreciate the beauty of nature, our fears recede.
Most people . . . go to work, get their paycheck, balance their checkbooks, and that’s it. On top of that, they wonder why they have money problems. Then, they think that more money will solve the problem. Few realize that it’s their lack of financial education that is the problem.” “The pattern of get up, go to work, pay bills, get up, go to work, pay bills… Their lives are then run forever by two emotions, fear and greed. Offer them more money, and they continue the cycle by also increasing their spending. This is what I call the Rat Race.”
Fear has them in this trap of working, earning money, working, earning money, hoping the fear will go away. But every day they get up, and that old fear wakes up with them. For millions of people, that old fear keeps them awake all night, causing a night of turmoil and worry. So they get up and go to work, hoping that a paycheck will kill that fear gnawing at their soul. Money is running their lives, and they refuse to tell the truth about that. Money is in control of their emotions and hence their souls.”
It is perfectly normal to desire something better, prettier, more fun or exciting. So people also work for money because of desire. They desire money for the joy they think it can buy. But the joy that money brings is often short lived, and they soon need more money for more joy, more pleasure, more comfort, more security. So they keep working, thinking money will soothe their souls that is troubled by fear and desire. But money cannot do that.” In fact, the reason many rich people are rich is not because of desire but because of fear. They actually think that money can eliminate that fear of not having money, of being poor, so they amass tons of it only to find out the fear gets worse. They now fear losing it. I have friends who keep working even though they have plenty. I know people who have millions who are more afraid now than when they were poor. They’re terrified of losing all their money. The fears that drove them to get rich got worse. That weak and needy part of their soul is actually screaming louder. They don’t want to lose the big houses, the cars, the high life that money has bought them. They worry about what their friends would say if they lost all their money. Many are emotionally desperate and neurotic, although they look rich and have more money.”
Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids about Money
ACCEPTING LONELINESS
If we can recognize and accept the real loneliness of the human condition—that, ultimately, we are each alone—we can then begin to free ourselves from the fear of loneliness that chews away at our human potential. “Each of us travels alone. No one else can always keep us safe."(2) If we can accept the pain of being human, of being self-aware, then perhaps we, like Jacob, might claim a blessing from our struggle. We will not then squander precious human resources trying to evade and escape the loneliness which has in it the seed of new life. In the pain of all human experience there is the call to conversion. The grandest schemes for avoidance and escape will not make us unalone, but they will distract us from our grandest human task: cooperation with the ongoing process of conversion.
In accepting loneliness as a part of the human condition and abandoning the frenetic search for someone or something to make us unalone, we can then be open to the message within our existential pain. Patient and prayerful waiting and listening are necessary, also courage and honesty with ourselves. But it is the only way to freedom from domination by fear. The alternative is to choose to remain unaware of what life asks of us (and irresponsible), but then we shall remain unfree and our life determined by our anxiety. “There is no solution to loneliness but to accept it, face it, live with it, and let it be. All it requires is the right to emerge in genuine form."(3) “The cure for loneliness lies in facing it and understanding it."(4) This acceptance and understanding is necessary if we are to live creative lives, if we are to be free and open to the opportunities for further growth and development. Before we can take this step toward understanding, we have to let go the fallacious idea that pain has nothing to teach us, that life should be always comfortable and pleasurable. If we are serious about our human task, we become aware of the invitation in the pain that enters our life, an invitation that invites us to be more than we are. “Where there is no pain there is no growth."(5) The pain of loneliness is such an invitation and opportunity.
Some of the greatest literature, art, and music that the world has known has been conceived in moments of profound loneliness, loneliness that has been accepted and allowed to speak. Such creation cannot happen through denial. And such creation is usually a lonely and solitary experience. It is like birthing—we have to go with the labor pains; no one else can do it for us. The creation that might result from our bearing the tension of our pain may bring delight to many, but the process of bringing it forth is a lonely one. Out of loneliness grows the contented aloneness that opens up to us our own creative depths. It is not in driven busyness that we find that “more” that we long for. It is in the recollection of aloneness that we discover deep within ourselves that which supports us when we have nothing or no one to take away our loneliness. It is here that we come in touch with the life that connects us with ourselves, with others, and with God.
The fear of loneliness can keep us from coming in touch with the life beyond loneliness, the life of aloneness and solitude. It is indeed easy to be seduced by the temper of our time, which is to stay constantly busy and on the move. By staying busy, by taking on more and more jobs, we can avoid the confrontation of loneliness; we look to our jobs and roles to tell us who we are and to provide us with self-validation. But the affirmation and approval of the world cannot provide us with self-validation. This comes from beyond ourselves, and yet it is located in our own depths. Our true identity is known only by the One who created us. Self-validation can come only from getting in touch with that truth which we are.
Part of our fear of loneliness is our fear of losing our self, or our sense of who we are, if we are cut off from those things which provide us with a sense of identity. This fear of loss of self is related to our fear of death, which is in truth a fear of life (see Ernest Becker’s Denial of Death). This fear has an insidious way of leaving its mark on all that we do or think. Because there is the fear of losing our sense of self if we suspend our activity, we shun the aloneness and non-activity of solitude. This only serves to strengthen our belief that we already know who we are. By our own definition we limit that self whose milieu is more one of infinitude. But this self known by the Father can be discovered only by first confronting the fears and insecurities which allow us to be less than we are. It is in solitude that we begin to see more clearly that image of ourselves that is fashioned more according to the demands of our ego; it is in solitude that we begin to glimpse a new image with possibilities beyond anything we have known. This journey from the old to the new carries us through a desert place. But this desert is the anteroom to joy. In this lonely place we are confronted by our own darkness, but we also meet there the One who knows our true name. Our triumph over loneliness will not come by refusing to be alone, avoiding solitude. “Loneliness can be conquered only by those who can bear solitude."(6) And those who can bear solitude will discover joy. Solitude is the handmaid of the interior life. Without quiet and aloneness, it is not possible to develop an interior life. And without an interior life, and an awareness of Something beyond self which calls us into being, there is nothing to speak to us but our own emptiness and loneliness.
DISCOVERING SELF THROUGH LONELINESS
It is not surprising that we have a fear of loneliness; the self that most of us are with when we are alone is indeed not very good company—a self impoverished and without holy joy. The great void that confronts us when we are cut off from those things which help to shore up a flagging sense of self speaks to us of missing parts of our self, areas which we have not yet discovered and appropriated. Our loneliness speaks to us of unlived life, potential within us that we are not living out. The responsibility to become more fully the person our loneliness invites us to be is a sacred one. The pain in our loneliness is transformed when we become aware that we are invited to be partners with God in the completion of our own creation. God asks our cooperation in our own completion, and our “attentiveness to the shape of this inbuilt task"(7) is nothing short of prayer. We have no task more sacred than to consent to wait in the void of our loneliness until grace breaks through (as Simone Weil suggests). Only then can our “inbuilt task” begin to unfold. Only by accepting the loneliness of the moment as sacrament and gift can we know God’s will, which is the peace, the joy, and the love that we long for. Essential to this creative moment is our being able to see our self as the gift of God to us. Only then can we begin to relate to our self.
Kierkegaard speaks of relating to one’s own self by willing to be oneself. This is a heroic task. Can we have the courage and willingness to become who we are meant to become without a—sense of gratitude which recognizes self as gift? William M. Thompson sees our development as spiritual beings as being directly related to our capacity for gratitude.(8) But perhaps before we can recognize and accept self as gift, and say yes to the personal task of becoming, we must be able to recognize and accept the gift and opportunity in our loneliness—and even in our despair. Our willingness to cooperate in God’s work of creation that we are depends much upon our consciousness of gift. In accepting self as gift (as well as the longings of the human condition) and accepting the task of becoming that self that beckons to us beyond the loneliness, we come into relation to others, to our self, and “to the Power which constituted it."(9)
The courage to be oneself emerges from accepting one’s fear of nonbeing. By our acceptance of the fear of nonbeing, which confronts us in our fear of loneliness, we are able to overcome our fear of becoming who we are. Implicit in the acceptance of our fear of nonbeing is our acceptance of our inability to be that person without help. Lacking the confidence to become who we are, we place our confidence in the One who calls us forth. The fear of nonbeing in our loneliness anxiety is overshadowed by the love that calls us into being, through the loneliness, to the self who dwells in God. This self can have the courage to be only when it experiences itself as known and loved by the One who both calls it and empowers it to be.
As co-creators and as carriers of a divine spark, we have a responsibility to join in the work of divinization of the world. The work begins with us. We “must build—starting with the most natural territory of our own self—a work, an opus, into which something enters from all the elements of the earth.“‘(10)Even as we build our own souls we are collaborating in the building of the earth, the completion of ourselves and the world. All that is a part of our life enters into this “work”—throughout our lives we are and have been in the process of making our souls and building the world. This work can begin in earnest with our conscious response to the personal task of transformation. Our loneliness and longing remind us that we are not yet all that we are meant to be.
Seen from this perspective, it would seem that loneliness is indeed a gift; it proffers us the opportunity to recognize our own incompleteness and the invitation to accept our part in this work of creation. Ernest Becker speaks of loneliness as an “evolutionary achievement.” In “The Spectrum of Loneliness,” he observes that loneliness is distinctive in evolution; human loneliness is unique because “it develops out of a non-physical, non-instinctive sphere."(11) Existence poses for each individual a question that must be answered. And we cannot find the answer within ourselves wholly. “One cannot explain or justify one’s own existence."(12) That answer can come only from “some kind of ‘beyond.’”
Becker goes on to discuss the varieties of loneliness, including the “loneliness of individuation.” He asks: “What kind of social forms can we begin to imagine, in which the loneliness of individuation could be considered a desirable developmental goal in one’s personal life—in place of the frantic driveness of cultural and national achievement . . .?"(13
http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/843621kelsey.html
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
when we violated our reverence each for the other
Word version of this Study Guide
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
American Literature
1. The writers we read this quarter include Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Washington Irving, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Edgar Allan Poe, and Herman Melville. All these writers are are representative of the Romantic period.
Explain what “romanticism” means, when applied to 19th Century literature, and then discuss how Thoreau’s Walden and Melville’s Moby Dick may both be considered romantic texts even though they are quite unlike each other in many ways.
2. This course focuses on the relationship between literature and particular times and places. Using illustrations from at least three of the writers you have read this quarter, explain how literature responds to or is shaped by political, social, economic, or geographical events and realities.
3. Religion shaped the worldview of many of the writers we have read. Discuss changes in the religious understanding of of at least two writers during the Romantic Period as compared with at least one writer before the Romantic Period.
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Announcements • Romanticism •
mp3
http://www.garageband.com/mp3/Poe_The_Bells.mp3?|pe1|WdjZPXLrvP2rZFm3a29g
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Writing effective paragraphs
[Sentence 1: Transition from previous paragraph] Thoreau, however, is not necessarily interested in actually living in nature to the extent that he would be camping out. [Sentence 2: Lead-in to the quote] He writes about building his house, and the fact that it protected him from the elements. [Sentence 3: Includes quote] “I began to occupy my house on the 4th of July,” he says, “as soon as it was boarded and roofed, for the boards were carefully feather-edged and lapped, so that it was perfectly impervious to rain . . . .” [Sentence 4: Tells why you include this quote] As you can see, he was careful in the way he constructed his house, and he did wish to be protected from the elements when necessary. [Sentence 5: Adds more information to strengthen the support] It is also interesting that he did not actually move to the woods until this house was ready for him to live in. [Sentence 6: Reminder of how this relates to your main idea] So it is apparent that while he loved nature, he wasn’t living in a cave, or even a tent.
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Writing effective paragraphs
“Civil Disobedience”
by Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” essay has inspired many people, including Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. In the essay, Thoreau doesn’t waste time. He spells out his opinions quickly and boldly. He calls for a radical course of action: a person should be willing to break the law if the government is doing something immoral. I don’t agree with his position.
I think he undermines the main purpose of government. A person who follows Thoreau’s suggestions would be damaging his or her own situation in the long run. That’s because our system is built on a social contract somewhat like Rousseau described; we need to sacrifice certain individual liberties for the good of the larger community. The larger community provides justice and defence, as well as a host of other benefits such as highway systems and snow removal. This system depends on individuals working together in accordance with laws. If people walk off or break laws just because that they disagree then the whole system is threatened. As Rousseau might say, once one person breaks the contract, the whole pact is off.
Furthermore, governments, because they must take into account a great many interests, need lengthier processes for discussing and evaluating decisions. Though Thoreau is right to claim that individuals enjoy an “alacrity” that governments do not, governments could not properly address so many citizens needs and desires without taking more time and care in the process. For example, it may only take me ten seconds to decide what I want to happen to guns in this country. But a government, in answering to and answering for thousands and often millions, rightfully slows down, surveys public opinion, and proceeds slowly and methodically to make sure a communal answer is the right one. If they moved too fast, they would risk grossly offending, if not hurting a large portion of the citizens.
My larger point is that Thoreau’s fundamental position only makes sense in general terms when you’re thinking only of yourself. That, to me, is his central mistake. I feel he fails to acknowledge the required individual compromise and collective decision-making a government must account for in order to work. Were we to act so individually, I wonder whether we would return to a more medieval--even primal--anarchy which may have been the incentive for moving to a social form of government in the first place.
Maybe during Thoreau’s time it appeared that too many people were blindly following the law and the traditions of society. But we live in times when protests and cheating and white collar crime are rampant. Thoreau’s advice might have been better for the people of his age than it is for people today. Today, we need writers stressing the reasons it’s important to obey laws and work within the system.
copied (and slightly revised) from: http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/thoreau.htm
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Writing effective paragraphs
“Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau
Our discussion of justice continues with one of America’s more revered essays for individual rights and radical resistance, a work which inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. decades later. Thoreau certainly doesn’t waste any time, either. He spells out his opinions passionately and boldly, and he advocates an essentially radical course of action: be willing to break the law if your government is doing something immoral.
Having said that, I must disagree with Thoreau; I think that what he advocates undermines the overriding purpose of government in the first place. In other words, if you follow Thoreau’s suggestions you’re hurting your situation more overall than you’re helping, and for however unsuccessful a government may be, you’re only making it worse this way. That’s because we exist in system not unlike Rousseau’s social contract; we willingly sacrifice certain individual liberties for the good of a larger community and thus larger liberties, like security and pooled efforts. This system hinges on individuals working in concert with each other with laws mutually agreed upon, not people walking off or breaking laws just because they, as minority individuals, disagree. For example, if a community votes on a particular moral issue, the majority vote ought to rule. If the failing minority just walks away or disobeys these communal decisions, the whole point of shared trust and social compromise is defeated, and as Rousseau might say, once one person breaks the contract, the whole pact is off.
Furthermore, governments, because they must account for as many individual citizens as possible, need to create lengthier processes for evaluating, voting upon, and acting upon political decisions. Though Thoreau is right to claim that individuals enjoy an “alacrity” governments do not, governments could not properly address so many citizens’ needs and desires without taking more time and care in the process. For example, it may only take me ten seconds to decide what I want to happen to guns in this country. But a government, in answering to and answering for thousands and often millions, rightfully slows down, surveys public opinion, and proceeds along patient procedures to make sure a communal answer is the right one. If they moved too fast, you risk grossly offending, if not hurting a large portion of your citizens.
My larger point is that Thoreau’s fundamental position only makes sense in general terms when you’re thinking only of yourself. That, to me, is his central mistake. I feel he fails to acknowledge the required individual compromise and collective decision-making a government must account for in order to work. Were we to act so individually, I wonder if we would return to a more medieval--even primal--anarchy which was the original incentive for moving to a social form of government in the first place. (This is the guy who lived in a homemade shack for a few months in the swamp, by the way. Am I the only one get Una-Bomber flashbacks?)
Besides making this point, I have an ulterior motive for writing this: I’m trying to show my development scheme in action. If you look at the last three paragraphs, you’ll see I followed a formula for paragraph development. I decided to split the ideas up into separate paragraphs only because I chose to spend extra time to explain and develop my points; if I didn’t do this, the paragraph would be too weighty, too long.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) Main claim: I clearly state my opinion and claim about why I disagree with Thoreau. My claim isn’t radical, but it is bold only because I’m taking the famous Henry David Thoreau on directly. Notice it only took me one compound sentence to state a topic sentence, and the paragraph is already off and running.
2.) Restatement for Clarity: I can’t run off too fast, though. I write in the topic sentence that Thoreau “undermines the overriding purpose of government,” but that isn’t completely clear if you think about it. I use the next sentence, then, to restate my same idea--and notice I use the phrase “in other words,” a phrase which clearly marks restatement is happening--but my restatement is much clearer and more direct. I want my main point to be relatively clear before I go off defending it. Defending an unclear point is useless, after all.
3.) Reason #1: My first reason is clearly marked as a reason when I start the sentence with the phrase “That’s because . . . .” This signals to the reader that I’m presenting a reason. Stating one reason in one sentence takes either a longer, more sophisticated sentence and two smaller sentences, typically. I take the first route.
4.) Connection #1: But just stating a reason isn’t enough; how does that reason connect with my paragraph’s main point exactly? I attempt to bridge this gap with the next sentence, and again, the purpose of this connection sentence is to clarify my reasoning to my audience. I want them to see why this reason supports this point so the connection between the two is clear.
4b.) Example #1: An example helps right about now because it’s always easier to be shown something than to be told something. (For example, don’t tell me UFO’s exist--show me the evidence.) Examples make a reason even stronger and they make a reason even clearer. That’s because examples are so concrete, they’re easier to grasp and easier to believe. They pull double duty, then, and that’s why examples are so crucial to good writing.
5.) Reason #2: One reason which supports a claim is sometimes enough, let’s be honest. But two reasons are always better than one, so I went ahead and offered a second premise. Because my paragraph was getting long enough already, I started a new paragraph here because it’s a clean place to break. Notice I use a simple transition to signal this new idea ("Furthermore"--don’t forget transitions!). My second reason takes one meaty sentence, but I get it out.
6.) Connection #2: But again, a reason in isolation does not clearly support my main point. I spend this extra sentence to connect this reason to my point just so, again, everything makes sense.
6b.) Example #2: But for all this, nothing replaces an example. Because I’m only tackling one reason, connection, and example in one paragraph, I decide to slow down and develop this example in a few sentences rather than one. I want to simultaneously fill the paragraph, you see, and explain clearly what my example is trying to prove. Remember that spending more than one sentence on any one of these parts is perfectly natural and usually works out better anyway because it shows you’re developing your point.
7.) So what? I could stop and just move on to another point. I’ve offered two reasons and two examples for my claim, after all. But it’s important to spend a moment to really push your claim and make it do some work. “So what?” is an important question to answer because it’s honest and it stresses that your claim needs some sort of significance or deeper point than merely just itself. (And if you can’t answer “So what?” you probably don’t see the significance in your own claim--so how on earth how will your reader?)
Again, the paragraph felt full enough and I decided to start yet another new paragraph since this is a good space to break at. I overtly announce “My larger point is . . .” to stress that answering “So what?” is providing a larger, deeper, more meaningful point. This is the pay-off your point, the potentially interesting part where good essays start to build force. Because I’ve mentally resolved to spend this whole paragraph to answering “So what?” I develop my point more patiently, fleshing out my ideas in greater detail. (That wise-crack at the end in parantheses was just meant to lighten the mood and create a kind of “sealing off” which a last sentence ought to do.)
If I had another main paragraph or main point to get to, I would try to set up the next point at the very end of this paragraph. Since I don’t have another point, I don’t bother with the set-up. But at least you see my formula in action; you can play with the details of it many, many ways but it fundamentally makes sure you cover the fundamentals of paragraph development: clarity, defense, explanation, example, detail, and larger significance If you cover all six of those per main paragraph claim, you’re virtually guaranteed to write quality essay bodies.
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/thoreau.htm
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
American Renaissance
- What was Thoreau’s position on the Mexican War?
- Why did he feel this way?
- Who does Thoreau hold responsible for the accomplishments of America?
- List examples.
- Thoreau states that “no government would be best.” However, as a citizen what does he call for at once? Why?
- Why does Thoreau distrust “majority rule”?
- If the law requires you to support an injustice toward another, then what should you do?
- Why was Thoreau jailed?
- How did Thoreau view his punishment?
- When does he believe that a free and enlightened state will exist?
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Government
We the people of the United States, in order to
- form a more perfect union,
- establish justice,
- insure domestic tranquility,
- provide for the common defense,
- promote the general welfare, and
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Against Civil Disobedience
This excerpt from an article by two University of Montana Professors suggests that schools aren’t doing a good job of teaching the seriousness of civil disobedience. It suggests that much modern protest is intellectually and morally questionable, and that that it has little in common with what such thinkers as Thoreau (and Martin Luther King and Ghandi) were talking about.
by James J. Lopach and Jean A. Luckowski
A new kind of civil disobedience came to Missoula, Montana, recently. On a bridge over the Clark Fork River, a group from Wild Rockies Earth First! blocked a truck carrying logs from the Bitterroot Forest. Two of the protesters tied ropes to the rig, lowered themselves and their sign, “Globalization Kills Our Forests,” to within a few feet of the torrent below, and refused to cooperate with rescuers who were dispatched from local fire stations to “rescue” them. The Earth Firsters were eventually coaxed to safety and charged with felony criminal endangerment. At their arraignment they denied that they had put the firefighters at risk, demanded to be set free, and ridiculed the conditions of their release on bail. One defendant brandished what a local newspaper called her “flame-and-monkey-wrench tattoos,” an emblem, apparently, of her willingness to wreck rather than to respect government.
Earth First’s brand of civil disobedience--frequently ill-tempered, not always nonviolent, and often coolly self-righteous seems to be increasingly popular these days. Groups as diverse as ACT UP (gay rights), Critical Mass (environmental bicyclists), even the archconservative Catholic League are getting on the civil disobedience bandwagon. After the Ninth Circuit Court upheld a ban on “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in 2003, the League’s president wrote, “It is up to the teachers in the nine western states affected by this decision to break the law. They should instruct their students on the meaning of civil disobedience and then practice it.” Some of the new breed of lawbreakers lay claim to the traditions of civil disobedience. ACT UP, for instance, says its “fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence. . .originated largely with Mohandas Gandhi.” Appreciation of that past seems to be shockingly selective, however. Indeed, as even the Catholic League president insinuated, our schools, incubators of civic culture, play a significant role in instructing students about civil disobedience. But are American schools teaching the fundamentals of the social contract? Do our teachers appreciate that there is more to civil disobedience than mere self-expression or simple claims on conscience?
Not Your Father’s Disobedience
Traditional civil disobedience has usually combined deep spiritual beliefs with intense political ones. And while appreciating the differences in the two worlds--render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s--practitioners respected both. Gandhi, for instance, while leading a massive populist movement against British occupation of India (in the 1930s and 1940s), grew distrustful of mass demonstrations because participants were unwilling to go through the difficult process of purifying their actions; that is, grounding their activism in religious faith and human dignity. Martin Luther King, who warned that civil disobedience risked anarchy, went to jail “openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
While sometimes willful and defiant and sometimes passive to the point of self-extinction (Socrates did not protest his punishment), the heroes of civil disobedience believed in the need to obey a higher authority and to be cleansed of self-interestedness. For instance, King’s words from an Alabama jail cell in 1963 (where he was being punished for marching in defiance of a court order): “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Compare those sentiments with the words written 40 years later by Craig Marshall, an Earth Liberation Front activist, from his Oregon jail cell (where he was serving a five-year term for setting fire to logging trucks): “There are necessary evils if we want to be effective in our struggles, such as the use of petro-fuels in igniting huge bonfires in which we can watch corporations go bankrupt. . .I hope I don’t sound as if I’m condemning these activities--by all means, burn the [expletive deleted] to the ground.”
Compare the reasoning of Gandhi and King, who presume harmony between a moral order and a rightly formed conscience, to the rationalizing of Earth First! and its political cousin the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). For Earth First! an ethic of “Deep Ecology” justifies “using all the tools in the tool box--ranging from grassroots organizing [to] monkey wrenching [which includes] ecotage, ecodefense, billboard bandits, desurveying, road reclamation, tree spiking.”
Similarly, the Earth Liberation Front argues that “dependence on the substances in the natural environment” justifies “more and more step[ping] outside of this societal law to enforce natural law” and boasts that since late 1997 “there have been over two dozen major actions performed by the ELF in North America alone resulting in nearly $40 million in damage.”
In many respects Martin Luther King would seem to have more in common with the Supreme Court, which dismissed his Birmingham appeal, than with modern protesters. “In fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” the Court wrote in 1967, “however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. . . Respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom.”
Then and Now--and Then Again
In 1972, when the United States was experiencing race riots, war protests, and campus violence, Harvard political scientist Edward C. Banfield penned an essay, “How Many, and Who, Should Be Set at Liberty?” describing an American society spinning out of control. Banfield sounded an alarm that should resonate for teachers, administrators, and curriculum committees today as they consider their civic education duties. Banfield quoted John Locke grouching about youth’s innate “inability to control impulses and to take the future into account.” He went on to warn that society would only prolong this adolescent predisposition if it instructed the individual “that he must be his own ultimate judge of what is right and wrong and that the ‘moral censure’ of anyone claiming authority over him is mere opinion.” Quoting another political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Banfield notes that no society can reasonably expect a liberated individual to naturally “accept and act upon certain indispensable social rules,” and so society must transmit the wisdom and authority of “received opinion” to its young lest they remain mere children. . .
from Education Next
Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Against Civil Disobedience
An article disagreeing with the actions of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s refusal to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Judicial Building in Montgomery after being ordered to do so by a federal court. Moore believed that the court order was unconstitutional.
Q: Should more conservative officeholders defy outrageous edicts of federal courts? NO: The rule of law obliges officials to comply or resign for reasons of conscience.
by Richard Land
As we have seen in the Ten Commandments/Judge Roy Moore controversy in Alabama, determining which extreme circumstances morally would justify defiance of a court’s authority generates great controversy even among conservative Americans who agree on a wide range of other issues. The federal judiciary has bombarded the American people in the last few decades with so many “outrageous” decisions that they have precipitated a crisis by causing millions of U.S. citizens to question not only the correctness of their rulings, but the legitimacy of their authority.
As a Christian and as a conservative I, too, am righteously indignant at the federal courts’ attempts to deny our Judeo-Christian heritage and to enforce a rigid and artificial secular bias on our public spaces. I am as angered as anyone by the declaration of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase “under God.”
I, too, am angered when courts uphold teachers presenting classes on Islam to encourage tolerance but deny student-initiated, student-led, student-content-dictated prayer before high-school sporting events simply because the government paid for the public-address system (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe).
I, too, am angered when courts rule that competitively won, publicly funded scholarships can be used by students to major in anything but religious studies.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ outrageous decision that Moore did not have the right to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda is the poster-child example for an out-of-control federal judiciary that blatantly is discriminating against religion and religious expression.
I have and will continue vigorously to protest such hostile and unconstitutional court rulings. I have and will continue to do everything I can to encourage evangelical Christians and others to rise up and reform this government and its courts.
The Ten Commandments/Judge Moore case does focus attention on several issues of controversy concerning the issue of if, and when, to defy court orders. Moore has argued that the federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments display was unconstitutional, that he had to obey a higher law than the federal court and that he had a moral duty to disobey or defy it.
Actually, Moore has made two different arguments that need to be addressed. First, he has asserted that the federal appeals court did not have the constitutional authority to order him to remove the Ten Commandments display because it said he was violating the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” and the First Amendment does not apply to state government, only to Congress. This is an argument that has been made before and is an intriguing legal theory, but it has been rejected by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, for about a century.
The Supreme Court has been ruling for at least that long that the “equal-protection” clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) applies all the Bill of Rights prohibitions against federal-government action to state and local governments as well. Moore and others may disagree, but the institution given the authority to adjudicate the issue, the Supreme Court, has ruled for numerous decades that the First Amendment must apply to state and local governments.
Attorneys consistently are winning free-exercise-of-religion cases against state governments and county zoning commissions by going into federal court and arguing that the First Amendment’s protection against government “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion applies not just to Congress, but to government at all levels. If the Supreme Court were to reverse itself and agree with Moore that the First Amendment applies only to Congress, Christians and other people of faith would be at the mercy of zoning commissions telling them they could not have Bible studies above a certain size in their own homes (a Connecticut case) or how many worship services and what maximum attendance would be allowed to ease traffic concerns (a case in the Pacific Northwest).
Moore’s second argument, that he had an obligation to obey a higher law and acknowledge God through his Ten Commandments display, even when a federal court however misguided has ruled otherwise, deals directly with the issue of when it is justifiable to defy court orders.
Jesus said we are to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). The Apostle Paul enjoined every person to “be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1). The Apostle Peter calls us to “Submit [our]selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (I Peter 2:13). Is nonviolent civil disobedience ever acceptable? Yes it is, in extreme circumstances, if God is to remain sovereign. Francis Schaeffer put it succinctly in A Christian Manifesto (1981): “One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.”
Yes, there may well come a time when legal redress of grievance has been exhausted that individual Christians may feel compelled by conscience to disobey unjust laws through nonviolent civil disobedience, obey God rather than man and willingly face the legal consequences for such nonviolent protests. Two excellent examples in Alabama’s history are Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. King was arrested for protesting segregation laws in Birmingham and Parks for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery.
There are some who have compared Moore’s action with those of King and Parks. However, there are two critically important differences. First, King and Parks were part of a disenfranchised class of African-Americans that systematically was prohibited from voting in the Alabama of the 1950s and the early 1960s. The threshold for civil disobedience is lowered substantially when you are denied the right to legal redress of grievance through the ballot. Moore not only can vote, he is the highest elected judicial official in the Alabama state government and was far from having exhausted his legal appeal process through the courts.
Second, Moore is not a private citizen like King and Parks. When a government official defies a court order with which he disagrees, you are dealing with a very different challenge to the rule of law than when an individual engages in nonviolent civil disobedience. When a government official takes it upon himself to decide which legal authority he is going to acknowledge and which he isn’t, then you have a direct challenge, not of a law but of the rule of law.
The United States is a government founded on the rule of law, not of men. If we disagree with a judicial interpretation of the law (which makes it the legal authority until it is reversed, or the law is changed) then we must change the judges and, if necessary, change the laws.
What we must not do, unless we want to abandon the rule of law and take a huge step toward anarchy and rebellion, is support defiance of legal authority by officials sworn to uphold the law.
As an elected official, Moore should have, like his eight fellow justices, and Alabama’s governor and attorney general, obeyed the federal court order under protest, continued the appeals process and made his compelling case for the right to display the Ten Commandments in the courts and in the courtroom of public opinion. I will continue to help him make that case.
If Moore felt that his conscience would not allow him to comply with the federal court order, even pending appeal, then he should have resigned his office and continued to make his case. As chief justice, his refusal to comply caused the state of Alabama, not Moore personally, to be in defiance of federal authority.
If, as a private citizen, Moore felt compelled by conscience to protest the removal of the Ten Commandments display by engaging in a nonviolent sit-in at the Alabama Supreme Court building, I would respect his freedom of conscience. If he were arrested, I would contribute to his legal-defense fund. If he penned a “Letter from the Montgomery Jail,” I would help him publicize his case.
What we should not support, however, is a right for government officials to decide for themselves which authority they will recognize and which they will not. That weakens the commitment to the rule of law that is one of the great foundations of this republic. Widespread support for such a concept quickly would lead to anarchy.
A conversation I had recently illustrates this point. I asked the pastor who defended Moore for obeying a “higher law” by defying the court order, “Brother, are you really saying that the sheriff in your county should have the right to decide which laws he is going to enforce and which laws he isn’t? Let us suppose your sheriff said ‘I believe that every woman has a God-given right to choose whether to abort her baby or not, so I am simply not going to enforce any regulations against abortion in my jurisdiction, whatever the law may say.’”
The pastor replied, “Well, he wouldn’t be appealing to God’s higher law.”
I replied that God’s higher law can become awfully subjective, especially for non-Christians, and if we allow officials to have a private interpretation of which laws to enforce, we rapidly will collapse into anarchy everyone will do that which is right in their own eyes.
To challenge the rule of law, especially as an official of the state, is to play with a fire that can consume the principle upon which an entire governmental system is based the rule of law. I want to reform this government, not consume or destroy it.
We must only engage in the civil disobedience of defying court orders as private citizens as a last resort and as a matter of conscience. We should not support government officials defying duly constituted authority because to do so is to threaten the rule of all law, not just unjust law.
Land is president of the 16.2 million-member Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. A Princeton and Oxford graduate, he also hosts two nationally syndicated radio programs, For Faith & Family and Richard Land Live!
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Against Civil Disobedience
An editorial response by National Review to a symposium in First Things magazine, the tone of which suggested to some readers that First Things was calling for civil disobedience against the United States because of Supreme Court decisions interpreted as hostile to those of Christian faith.
CAN a Christian, or a Jew, or any other thoughtful religious person, justify resistance to unjust laws passed by our modern American democracy? And if such laws seem permanently entrenched, can he abandon his general duty toward lawful authority and (though forswearing violent resistance) live as a kind of internal exile, refusing to obey certain laws, even obstructing their enforcement, and withholding a portion of his taxes on the grounds that they feed the immoral appetites of an illegitimate Leviathan?
These questions are raised not in the abstract by NATIONAL REVIEW, but in the concrete circumstances of today’s judicial decisions on abortion, physician-assisted suicide (a/k/a euthanasia), gay marriage, and social institutions and morality in general, by First Things, the magazine on religion and public life, edited by Richard John Neuhaus. The November issue of First Things contains a symposium on “The End of Democracy.” To oversimplify, it offers two broad and (we would contend) not fully compatible judgments. The first argument—advanced by Robert Bork and Hadley Arkes—is that the federal courts have abused judicial review to the point of usurping the powers of elected legislatures and thereby eroding American democracy—and that something should be done about it. NR fully endorses that argument and would like to see judicial review severely curbed. But the second claim—which appears in the essays of Russell Hittinger, Robert George, and Charles Colson—is more dubious. It is that, because politicians and people have acquiesced in these judicial decisions (in effect, by not rising up to reverse them), American democracy itself has embraced a moral neutrality in the law that is oppressive toward religious citizens, hostile to any morality that can be shown to have religious roots (i.e., all of them), destructive of social institutions like marriage and family which have until now been shored up by religious morality embodied in law, and literally murderous toward the unborn—and that therefore the American democratic regime may be “illegitimate.” . . . .
. . ."Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s . . .” was addressed by Christ to the subjects of a tyrannical and unjust empire whose moral and religious views (not to mention their nationalist sentiments) were outraged daily by its edicts and practices. Christ was not, of course, counseling acceptance of morally objectionable laws—He completed the injunction “. . . and to God the things that are God’s”—but He was discouraging rebellion against Rome’s general authority. The grounds on which a Christian may legitimately resist lawful authority are few and hard to establish—genuine oppression, positive legal injunctions to enforce a moral evil, etc. The methods he may use are narrowly circumscribed—refusal to enforce an objectionable law sometimes, organized physical resistance to it rarely, armed uprising almost never. And his aims should be appropriately modest—the withdrawal of the law rather than the overthrow of the government.
Note that these conditions do not depend upon a government’s being democratic. Our general obligation to obey the laws rests upon the fact that the laws protect us (against our fellow man), not upon the ultimate justice of the government’s founding, still less (fortunately) upon its general moral character. When law and government seriously oppress us (under despotism), fail to protect us (in conditions of anarchy), or threaten our very lives (Nazism, Bolshevism, Pol Pot), then our obligations to them are correspondingly relaxed, negated, or replaced by a duty of resistance. But these circumstances are happily rare. In most times and places, we have a simple moral duty to obey the law.
If democracy is not required to justify this obligation, it nonetheless strengthens it. For democracy provides legal avenues of protest and reform which remove the justification for resistance to specific unjust laws—or at least shrink it to the level of conscientious objection and modest civil disobedience (which, to be sure, is all that Dr. Hittinger et al. are claiming). Yet the principle is clear: because a democracy never finally makes up its mind but allows indefinite debate, it cannot be said to have embraced a crime or entrenched a sin. Our aim now should be to reclaim our democracy from the courts.
(0) Comments • Permalink • Printer-Friendly • E-mail this page
Romanticism •
Google Apps
Writers' Studio
PHS Online (Moodle)
OurSpace (Ning)
PHS Flickr
Photography Club (Google)
Photography Club (MySpace)
Find more photos like this on OurSpace
Today's Assignments
English 11:
Advanced English 11:
AP English 12:
Table of Contents
(all posts, sorted by category}
Category Menu
Most recent entries
- “A River Runs Through It” Student Resources
- Wind From an Enemy Sky Resources & Study Guide
- Poems for Class
- Puritan resources
- Snow Falling on Cedars
- Charles Dickens
- Films available
- Things Fall Apart
- Vocabulary: Red Badge of Courage
- Red Badge of Courage Resources
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
- Great Gatsby Resources for Advanced English 11
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Emerson resources
- Huckleberry Finn Resources
Archives
- Complete Archives
- May 2011
- March 2011
- September 2010
- August 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006