The Declaration further invoked the Christian
tradition of civil disobedience, affirming the right and at times the obligation to oppose injustice by refusing to comply with civil authority if it attempts to undermine these basic human rights: «We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Some of the new breed of lawbreakers lay claim to
the traditions of civil disobedience.
Not exact matches
You stand in a noble
tradition of conscientious objection and
of civil disobedience.
Even the Center for Civic Education, a 40 - year - old nonprofit organization whose National Advisory Committee reads like a Who's Who
of democratic values and
traditions (including a dozen current and former members
of Congress and a couple
of Supreme Court justices), does not explain in its curriculum standards that
civil disobedience is rooted in fundamental principles as opposed to personal preferences.
Because movement conservatives
of that time such as William F. Buckley Jr., and Barry Goldwater didn't view state - sanctioned racism as the great moral question that it was, because their fetish for preserving
tradition led them to believe that the federal government didn't have the obligation to address segregation, because
of their concerns about communism and the expansion
of federal government, and because they viewed the
civil disobedience by activists such as Martin Luther King (as well as their push to force social change) as an affront to the order they craved, they essentially gave succor to Jim Crow segregationists even if that wasn't their original intent.
First, why is it called extremism when you try to «intimidate» companies into making policy decisions you prefer, when that intimidation is done through protest, campaigning and
civil disobedience, when the grand old
tradition of political lobbying and corporate campaign contributions essential does the same thing?
I like to think
of what he did as
civil disobedience in the
tradition of Henry Thoreau, not hacking.