OpEd: Manhattan Declaration is dangerous , irresponsible

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | November 28, 2009 at 07:34 am

1073 views | 51 Recommendations | 31 comments

An OpEd journalist in today's LA Times believes the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto of civil disobedience by religious leaders in the face of a secular democracy and its laws, - which was unveiled this month at a Washignton, DC press conference - is dangerous, ill-conceived, and irresponsible.

Making sweeping claims unsupported by facts, and using Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau as fellow ideologues embracing civil disobedience for similar reasons and with the same justification, is misleading, and a clarion call to revolt, the journalist believes. Emphasis below is my own:

Philosophers have argued for centuries over whether it is ever justifiable to break the law in the service of a higher cause. The question acquired a new complexity with the advent of societies such as the United States, in which laws were enacted by elected representatives and not decreed by a monarch or dictator.

Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that perpetuated white supremacy -- with the understanding that they would face punishment for their actions. But such civil disobedience is rightly regarded as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution.

That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." 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:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones. The strange land described in this statement is one in which a sinister secularist government is determined to force Christians to betray their principles about abortion or the belief that "holy matrimony" is "an institution ordained by God." The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Hugh Askew

at 08:27 on November 28th, 2009

If we go on the premise that it is wrong for those that signed the Manhattan Declaration to act on their beliefs, it seems that we must erase or alter the Declaration of Independence as well.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 08:31 on November 28th, 2009

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
The problem here, Hugh, is that it is part of the

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 08:32 on November 28th, 2009

oh it got cut off---I am so mad----the problem is that there is a huge civil divide among the liberal and conservatives, and not just a government against a people.............

Hugh Askew

at 09:06 on November 28th, 2009

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's."

That is from the Declaration. They are taking a stand with regards to government, not political groups. They are not calling people to arms. They are saying that they will not cross the line on these issues. Whatever the personal cost, they are making a stand.

There are no political parties or groups mentioned. They are not arguing against any group. The aren't aligning themselves with any party, any group, or any politics in general. There are Democrats - some quite liberal on many issues, Republicans - sure to be some nut jobs among those (using standard Liberal gauge), and independents as well. I see no politics in it - simply a strong and principled statement of resolve.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 08:45 on November 28th, 2009

Yes, all too true, but the "all or nothing" approach will continue....."He who is not with us is against us" is the banner flying , and what can be done?

Karen Hatter

at 08:46 on November 28th, 2009

Given the connections and links of many of these religious leaders, who are considered most influential in politics, to organizations engaged in intolerant, racially motivated activity, this bodes close scrutiny.

Hugh Askew

at 08:54 on November 28th, 2009

If "intolerant, racially motivated" is true, why are there African-Americans, and Black Africans amongst the signers? Black Anglicans are now going to be labeled as Uncle Toms? Please.

Karen Hatter

at 12:45 on November 28th, 2009

Hugh, the ties many from within the conservative Religious Right, like Dr. James Dobson, one of the founders of and former head of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins, called the most influential conservative Christian in Washington, D.C. and president of the Family Research Center, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, have to the anti-gay, women and racist Council of Conservative Citizens and Stormfront.org, the most well known hate site on the internet, are documented and well known.

Only Black Anglicans can answer why they've signed on.

In having conversations with some from within segments of the religious community, often there is a 'look the other way' attitude to how they practice their religion, if there is some aspect or aspects with which they can unite with others engaged in what might be referred to, in the most mildest of cases, 'questionable' behavior, that whole 'judge not' excuse in intoned .

Noting one or an organization is acting against a professed faith, any faith that lists specific no-nos, is not judging. A corrupt sort of rationalization has those who have had any lapse pointed out to them cry out they should not be judged.

Hugh Askew

at 16:45 on November 28th, 2009

That told me nothing. If the ties from Dobson, Perkins, or other signers to the Declaration are well documented, where, and by whom, are they documented?

Are these anything like the well documented ties that MLK had with the communist party?

Karen Hatter

at 18:59 on November 28th, 2009

Links for Dr. James Dobson and Tony Perkins.

Whatever ties there may or may not have been linking Dr. King to whatever communists, the ties between the conservative Religious Right, U.S. politicians and the White nationalist/supremacist movement for the last 20 years and today do exist.

Hugh Askew

at 07:25 on November 29th, 2009

That misses the point, but, oh well.

Karen Hatter

at 15:44 on November 29th, 2009

Hugh, the point is the danger of conservative Religious Right's ties to White nationalists/supremacists and U.S. politicians coloring their advocacy in a way that seeks to suppress and deny rights to those not deemed deserving by the extremists from within all three realms of influence.

Hugh Askew

at 18:12 on November 29th, 2009

Again, not the point. No one is "against" anyone in the Declaration.

See my post to smk above.

It is a stand against government, the government's dictating - or the potential for the government to dictate - laws that could force them to choose allegiance between their government and their faith. They simply state where they stand on the issue, and say how they will oppose the government.

As stated in the Manahattan Declaration, that opposition would be non-violent.

If the Declaration "seeks to suppress and deny rights" you must needs point it out to me. Perhaps i'm a little dense, but i can't seem to find any particular passage that says - or implies - what you are claiming.

Yommie

at 05:31 on November 29th, 2009

If "intolerant, racially motivated" is true, why are there African-Americans, and Black Africans amongst the signers?

Good point.

YankeeJim

at 07:43 on November 29th, 2009

Now, we are getting somewhere. Religion is one type of belief that the Constitution protects along with all others. When people of religious belief or any other type are intolerant of others to the extent that they undermine the Constitional rights for all people, then they have become enemies of the state and nation's people. They become a threat to themselves.

I do not believe that religious organizations should recieve any special consideration such as tax breaks. They should be treated as any association or private organization. When religions align themselves politically, this just further advances the argument that they are no different from any others.

Organizations and individuals can surely express their ideas and values with full confidence in their right to do so. Organizations that threaten the government through illegal actions or terrorist actions to the extreme make themselves enemies of the state and nation.

Rory Cripps

at 09:52 on November 28th, 2009

Oh thanks so much SMK! I love this kind of stuff! It makes me want to grab a gun, stand under the American Flag, and sing resounding choruses of Lee Greenwood's God Bless The USA! HA! (just kidding!)

Rory Cripps

at 09:36 on November 28th, 2009

Roy: It's obvious (and has been for quite some time) that many on the left are all for "free speech" as long as free speech doesn't challenge their point of view. And whenever the challenge is deemed significant, the ideologues on the left conjure up apocalyptic images of armed right wing religious fanatics running amuck. I get a kick out of dangerous, ill-conceived, and irresponsible.

Hugh Askew

at 09:58 on November 28th, 2009

Come on, Mr. Cripps. Face reality, puh -leez.

Anything that threatens the establishment is dangerous. If it threatens the ruling elite, it must be ill-conceived. Further, if it is dangerous, if it is ill-conceived, it really is irresponsible, is it not?

Rory Cripps

at 18:59 on November 28th, 2009

Hugh: You better watch out! You better not shout! You better not cry! I'm telling you why! Jesus Christ is coming to town!

aurealeus

at 12:40 on November 28th, 2009

"It's obvious (and has been for quite some time) that many on the left are all for "free speech" as long as free speech doesn't challenge their point of view."

What is also obvious is that many are also for Freedom of Choice but apparently only so long as it is their choice.

Rory Cripps

at 19:12 on November 28th, 2009

aurealeus: Yeah! Throw the baby out with the bath water and don't worry about any of it after that!

stejeb

at 13:09 on November 28th, 2009

I've always found it hard to understand why religions, whilst claiming to believe in the same god, have so many notions about what is right and what is wrong, just look at all the opposing views of the different "christian" sects within the USA. The only acceptable way a country can function and make progress is for the government to be completely divorced and seperate from religion, and for said religion(s) to have no power in the process, after all, every member of every religious group has a vote they can exercise at the ballot box, their religious leaders should have no more say than that either. Or there is no point in democracy.

Rory Cripps

at 20:00 on November 28th, 2009

stejeb:

Yes! Christians had absolutely nothing to do with the founding and subsequent establishment of America. It's nothing but a myth and a dirty lie perpetrated by the vast right-wing fundamentalist Christian conspiracy that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the writers of the U.S. Constitution were anything but atheists, secular humanists, and "progressives".

However the myth continues to this day! And what's really scary is that the ignorant/fundamentalist/Christian/inbred/rubes are busy stockpiling guns and ammunition in preparation for the impending Armageddon and consequent end times.

I'll remain neutral in the matter. However if any right or left ideologue gets in my face I'll break out my trusty fly swatter and shoo them away . . . .

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 13:17 on November 28th, 2009

So happy to see all are fighting, just as I wanted! :)

Rory Cripps

at 20:18 on November 28th, 2009

SMK: You like to start fights eh? It doesn't take much does it? lol!

Barbara McPherson

at 16:55 on November 28th, 2009

Hugh, as a Canadian, I have a very different viewpoint of the Boston Tea Party. Our history teaches us that the British crown spent huge amounts of money in the war against the French in N. America, mostly defending the colonies in New England. When taxes were imposed to help pay for the defensive war, the colonists refused to pay. They staged civil disobedience and violent protests. More people were killed. Those who disagreed with the rebels were forced out and went north to the Canadian colony. They were labelled United Empire Loyalists. Unfortunately, they displaced many French colonists who were shipped to the French territory in Louisiana. They became the Acadians. Our countries started out quite differently. In fact, when I hear your national anthem singing about 'bombs bursting in air' I cringe. How different and more appropriate is America the Beautiful. Don't shortchange the spirit of Canadians.

aurealeus

at 11:44 on November 29th, 2009

"Our history teaches us that the British crown spent huge amounts of money in the war against the French in N. America, mostly defending the colonies in New England."

Partly true but only in regards to the "huge amounts of money spent on the war" that was against the French in defense over England's Rule of the Colonies against French control, NOT in defense of the colonists from aggression by the French. Obviously, your history is flawed as outlined below.

"When taxes were imposed to help pay for the defensive war, the colonists refused to pay."

The tax that the colonists refused to pay was not for payment of the war. The tax that was opposed by the colonists was a tax on tea due to the "Tea Act," an act of Parlament that attempted to expand the East India Tea Co. monopoly on the tea trade with the colonies. Colonists were opposed the Act, because it appeared to support the last remaining duty imposed by the despised tea-tax of the Townshend Acts of 1767. Hence, the reason of the tax protest by colonists boarding and destroying the cargo of tea that was sitting idle aboard British ships at the Boston docks. This became known as "The Boston Tea Party". The colonists would no longer tolerate taxation without representation in government, unwarrented search and seizure, brutality by British soldiers, and other atrocious acts like the Boston Massacre, ultimately leading the colonists to declare their independence from England and resulting in what is known as the Americn Revolution.

"Unfortunately, they displaced many French colonists who were shipped to the French territory in Louisiana."

While it is true that many French were displaced, it was not due to the colonists tea protest but due mainly because of the Seven Year's War (or better known in the US as the French and Indian War) between Britian and France fighting over the colonies and other territories in the New World causing them to be displaced after being defeated and ousted by the British.

"How different and more appropriate is America the Beautiful."

Also considered the "Second American National Anthem" and deemed more appropriate by many Americans also. There have been efforts underway for some time to replace the traditional Star Spangled Banner.

The Spirit of America is still alive and well in most American's hearts and shouldn't be shortchanged either.

Rory Cripps

at 20:08 on November 28th, 2009

The bottom line is that Americans like to get drunk, smoke some weed, party and have a good time, kick a little ass now and then, and not be messed with. It's all quite simple . . . .