Monday, November 23, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration

Newsmax:

Religious Leaders Call for Civil Disobedience if Laws Don’t Respect Faith
Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:52 PM

A formidable coalition of 150 Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical leaders are calling on Christians in a new manifesto to reject secular authority – and even engage in civil disobedience – if laws force them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideas that betray their religious beliefs.

On Friday, these leaders released a 4,700-word document – called the "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience."

The document was signed by leaders ranging from evangelical leader Chuck Colson to two of the leading Catholic prelates in the U.S., Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, and calls on Christians to engage in civil disobedience to defend their doctrines.

The document also blasts the Obama administration, saying that social ills have grown since the election of President Obama, an abortion rights advocate, along with an erosion of what it calls "marriage culture" with the rise of divorce, greater acceptance of infidelity and the uncoupling of marriage from childbearing.

Colson says the project is aimed at instilling social conservative beliefs in a new generation of believers.

"We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues," he told The New York Times. "A lot of younger evangelicals say they're all alike. We're hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues" – abortion marriage and religious liberty.

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them," says the declaration, which was drafted by Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic.

The declaration lists the "fundamental truths" as the "sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty."

"Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required," says the document which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.

"Because we honor justice and the common good," it states, "we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or 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 and marriage and the family."

George and other signers backed off from specifically defining what civil disobedience may entail. Wuerl's office played down the civil disobedience wording, saying he wasn't urging Catholics to "do anything specific," his spokeswoman Susan Gibbs told The Washington Post. "That wasn't something we had talked about."

"We certainly hope it doesn't come to that," said George, who told The Washington Times that he has represented a West Virginia resident who has refused to pay a portion of her state income tax that funds abortions. "However, we see case after case of challenges to religious liberty," such as compelling pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or health care workers to assist in abortions, he added.

"When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot comply, it's better to suffer a wrong than to do it," he said.

Unveiling the declaration Friday, Archbishop Wuerl appeared at a news conference in the District of Columbia even as the Church was considering a city-proposed compromise on its same-sex marriage measure.

He and other Church officials say the bill would require faith-based groups like Catholic Charities to extend benefits to married same-sex partners, thus forcing Christians to abandon their religious liberty. On Friday, Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Other signatories to the document include Cardinal Justin Rigali, outgoing chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities; Pentecostal leader Harry Jackson, pastor of a Beltsville church; evangelical activist Tony Perkins; and National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson.

Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Newsweek the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates.

“I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

The leaders are urging the public to sign the online document.

Read the full document here

14 comments:

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Midnight Rider,

Weather one agrees with the people of a particular religion or not, they have a right to peacefully practice their faith. To tell the truth, to a large degree, this strategy just make work. If the authorities do decide to force them to do things that go against their faith, it won't look good having priests and rabbis being hauled off by police, for just sitting there, even to many people who are utterly opposed to their cause. I got to admit, this might be one of the best strategies at their disposal.

abdooss said...

I hope no one will be TASERed in that protest !! As most priests are aged & elderly, using of taser can cause death!

revereridesagain said...

So long as it is confined to civil disobedience they should be within their rights. Some questions will arise. Pharmacists working for pharmacy chains which stock birth control do not have a "right" to refuse to fill those prescriptions. They do have a right to find employment with an independent pharmacy whose policies agree with theirs.

Much of their civil disobedience would be irrelevant to those who do not choose to have their lives ruled by religious belief. Such people must make the decision as to whether their personal happiness will be tied to the dictates of priests. So long as their is no force involved, it's a personal issue. As the song says, "every form of refuge has its price".

There will be many gray areas, such as the "right" of parents to refuse medical aid to children in favor of "treatment" by prayer.

It will be interesting to see if they are equally righteous in opposing the advancement of Islam.

Which reminds me -- Abdooss, would your idea of civil disobedience in the medical sector involve refusing to abstain from performing clitorectomies, or am I reading you wrong? Would there be issues surrounding the treatment of amputation victims? Refusing to do "virginity repair"? Refusing to treat an uncovered woman or one not accompanied by a close male relative?

Pastorius said...

It seems to me the definition of Civil Disobedience is to do something that is NOT within ones rights.

The definition of Civil Disobedience is that one would purposefully do things which are against the law, because one believes the laws go against ones conscience.

Therefore, one is taking on the responsibility for the fact that he/she will/may go to jail. One is willfully deciding to go to jail as an act of public protest against laws which that person feels are immoral.

Pastorius said...

In this specific case, I do not know how I feel about this call to Civil Disobedience. The reason I don't know how I feel is because I am not clear on what these Pastors and Priests are objecting to?

Are they objecting to the idea of gay marriage in general?

Well, if so, then that is stupid, because as far as I know, there is not a place in the U.S. where Pastors or Priests are expected to perform gay marriages, or where they are expected to tolerate them within their own congregations.

Therefore, I would not support this.

However, if Drs. were forced to perform abortions, if Priests were forced to perform gay marriages, if Pharmacists were forced to hand out birth control, that would be another thing altogether.

At this point, I don't see those things happening, so this seems like a lot of sound and fury about nothing ...

or quite frankly, it sounds like the beginning of some sort of Christianist political party which I would not support.

revereridesagain said...

Hmmm, now that the coffee is kicking in, couldn't the Muslims just claim the same "right" to civil disobedience of laws they don't like -- i.e., anything that isn't Sharia? And would those now proposing civil disobedience support them, or use it to claim government accommodation of Muslims violates their rights, which could all get downright interesting.

Far as I know, an independent pharmacist would be within his/her rights to refuse to stock birth control. Don't try it if you work for Walgreens, however -- not unless you own the place. I do believe they still have the right to fire you and be civil about it or not.

Epaminondas said...

IMHO -Civil disobedience should always comprise breaking the law to compel others to consider what changes are required.

This is a solid idea. But Colson is 100% the wrong guy to lead this parade.

He will detract from the validity of the actions

Anonymous said...

I would argue that the liberal/progressive/socialist/commies, want exactly this.

they want to drive christian charities out of the health and adoption areas. or marginalize them

they have never liked charities (real charities not activist/cuase groups) becuase they dont like anything existing that competes with the government, and they dont like giving to charites only government.

think im wrong? liberals on average are notoriously less charitable then conservatives, all studies bear that out.

makes for better control of the sheeple if government takes over or has an iron grip on these things.

Epaminondas said...

@ rra - "couldn't the Muslims just claim the same "right" to civil disobedience of laws they don't like"

Of course, and more power to them.
The more sunlight on such demands the better. The more we light up what the Quran REQUIRES the better. The more the average american thinks about it, the better.

IMHO the Muslims Brotherhood types have their impact in america exactly BACKWARDS. They can only succeed IN THE DARK, at the periphery

revereridesagain said...

This sort of situation is what might be called the "quicksand effect". You start out with private health care and private hospitals and then you get public health care and publicly funded hospitals and now everyone who thought the public funding was just fine face losing it unless they do things they do not think are just fine. If at this point it occurs to anyone that it might have been a good idea to stay on the boardwalk in the first place it's not likely to help them get out of the quicksand.

Of course when you throw in issues like what happens to the healthcare crisis if all the Catholic and other hospitals which object to abortion close rather than perform them, the quicksand starts to resemble a black hole.

Should be interesting, if nothing else.

Pastorius said...

I've witnessed this personally. A few years back I was acting as the Agency of Record, doing Marketing and Advertising for a Church. The Church's budget came, in part, through a Grant they received from the government. At a certain point, the stipulations changed for receiving the Grant, and when they did, the Church lost the Grant.

In that case, the situation had nothing to do with morality. However, I learned firsthand why it is a bad thing for Churches to rely on government money.

The temptation to change one's own rules is too great.

Epaminondas said...

The govt exists to protect us from foreign threat, and truly predatory illegal behavior which the states CANNOT themselves protect us from.

They cannot do much else.
I want to paraphrase WT Sherman here: 'all attempts to use federal power, authority and money to make life easy and safe, will end in disaster and humiliation.'

We are extremely fortunate if LOCAL govt can help us do for ourselves when it is acutely necessary.

I want the federal govt to keep planes from being driven into buildings, and keep THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE.

The idea that they can substitute their judgment for someone consulting with their doctors and families so that en masse things will be better for more people

IS
A
DELUSION


Just as is the idea that life somehow can be 'made' easy and safe