The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jonathan C Augustine - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the fiery furnace Civil Disobedience and the Civil rights movement a biblical exegesis on daniel 3 and letter from birmingham jail
Richmond Public Interest Law Review, 2018Co-Authors: Jonathan C AugustineAbstract:This essay was written in observance of the 50th anniversary of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s untimely assassination in April 1968. It highlights some of King’s most important work during the American Civil Rights Movement in terms of its contemporary influence. As a focal thesis, this essay argues that King’s famed Letter From Birmingham Jail — written during his April 1963 incarceration in Birmingham, Alabama, for deliberately refusing to follow what he morally deemed to be an “unjust law” — was predicated on the biblical foundation of Civil Disobedience exemplified in the famed story of Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego, the three Hebrew boys who refused to obey King Nebuchadnezzar’s order to bow down to a deity made of gold. This essay argues that the Hebrew boys’ faith-based willingness to suffer the potentially fatal consequence for their Civil Disobedience instead of complying with immoral governmental dictates exemplifies the Judeo-Christian suffering servant theology that influenced King and permeated the Civil Rights Movement. King’s work was fueled by a suffering servant theology that regards suffering as redemptive provided it is for a moral cause. In arguing the Hebrews’ Civil Disobedience set a foundation for King’s leadership in the Movement, this essay pays tribute to King’s legacy by also connecting his example of selfless sacrifice in the form of Civil Disobedience in Birmingham to recent contemporary social movements, like Black Lives Matter, a successor to the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, that also seeks egalitarianism and inclusion.
-
the theology of Civil Disobedience the first amendment freedom riders and passage of the voting rights act
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Jonathan C AugustineAbstract:In 2011, usage of the term “Civil Disobedience” resurged in the American lexicon for at least two reasons: (1) there was widespread Civil This Article is dedicated to the late Rev. Robert H. Grant, former principal of St. Augustine High School in New Orleans, an institution founded by St. Joseph’s Society of the Sacred Heart (a/k/a The Josephite Fathers and Brothers), of which Fr. Grant was a member, and named for the great church doctor and teacher, Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine High School was established in 1951 as a place of excellence where African American young men could receive a quality Catholic education. See generally, MATTHEW J. O’ROUKE, SSJ, BETWEEN LAW AND HOPE: ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (2003). See also ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL, http://purpleknights.com/cms /?page_id=82 (last visited Jan. 24, 2012). Upon information and belief, during the latter part of his tenure at St. Augustine, 1960–1969, Fr. Grant challenged the leadership of Archbishop Phillip M. Hannan regarding discriminatory archdiocesan fiscal appropriations to St. Augustine, in comparison with other Catholic high schools in New Orleans. Shortly thereafter, Fr. Grant was transferred. He will long be remembered as a member of the clergy who advanced human equality through social advocacy and education, with an informed willingness to accept the consequences of his actions. The author extends special thanks to David M. Whitford, professor of the History of Christianity at United Theological Seminary; Raymond T. Diamond, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Distinguished Professor of Law at the Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center; Antoine L. Joseph, professor of Historical Sociology at Bryant University; and Keriann P. Langley of the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, for their review and comments on earlier drafts of this Article. * Herbert S. and Mary L. Beane Fellow and National Rainbow-PUSH Coalition Foundation Scholar at United Theological Seminary; B.A., 1994, Howard University; J.D., 2001, Tulane University School of Law. The author is an ordained member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and a former law clerk to Louisiana Supreme Court Associate Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson. The author gratefully acknowledges the generous financial support of the Harmon O. DeGraff Memorial Scholarship Fund that made the research and writing of this Article possible. 256 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal [Vol. 21:255 protest in Egypt; and (2) America observed the fiftieth anniversary of the now-celebrated Freedom Rides. Both reasons demonstrate the continued relevance of the twentieth century American Civil Rights Movement (“the
-
the theology of Civil Disobedience the first amendment freedom riders and passage of the voting rights act
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Jonathan C AugustineAbstract:In 2011, usage of the term “Civil Disobedience” resurged in the American lexicon for at least two reasons: (1) there was widespread Civil protest in Egypt; and (2) America observed the fiftieth anniversary of the now-celebrated Freedom Rides. Both reasons demonstrate the continued relevance of the twentieth century American Civil Rights Movement (“the Movement”).American media widely covered Egyptian citizens’ nonviolent acts of Civil Disobedience as Egyptians peacefully protested governmental corruption in demanding free and fair elections. Further, since 2011 marked the golden anniversary of the Freedom Rides in the United States, Americans were reminded of the nonviolent Civil Disobedience undertaken by an interdenominational movement of clergy and laity, undergirded by a Judeo-Christian suffering servant theology. Dissident adherents literally sacrificed themselves for the democratic cause in which they believed. Notwithstanding differences, the respective movements shared a common goal: indiscriminate citizen participation in voting. Accordingly, Civil Disobedience led to both movements being successful. In Egypt, the government announced unprecedented open elections. In the United States, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”).This interdisciplinary Article argues that a Judeo-Christian suffering servant theology undergirded the use of Civil Disobedience in the the Movement and caused it to be successful because, among other things, the VRA was enacted. The Movement’s success can be quantifiably measured through the VRA, as America became a more inclusive society. Indeed, after the VRA’s passage, African Americans were elected to federal, state, and local offices as never before.As a focal point, this Article details the theology of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the Movement’s key leaders. This Article also details several key Supreme Court decisions that resulted from dissident acts of Civil Disobedience and shaped the First Amendment’s scope, while also paying tribute to the Freedom Riders, a group of young college and seminary students that literally risked their lives in a nonviolent fight for democracy. Finally, this Article concludes by highlighting both empirical and anecdotal evidence that support the author’s assertion that the Movement’s success can indeed be measured by the VRA’s passage.
Frederic Megret - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Civil Disobedience and international law sketch for a theoretical argument
Canadian Yearbook of International Law Annuaire canadien de droit international, 2009Co-Authors: Frederic MegretAbstract:Cet article soutient qu'il ya une tendance croissante de la societe Civile de recourir a la desobeissance Civile par rapport aux valeurs juridiques internationaux. Mais le droit international ne s'est pas adapte a cette tendance. En fait, tant le droit international que la desobeissance Civile beneficierait d'une meilleure comprehension de leur interaction. L'article retrace brievement des arguments tires du droit international dans le cas de desobeissance Civile, met en evidence les contraintes theoriques du debat, et cherche a etablir quelques fondements de base pour une theorie juridique internationale de la desobeissance Civile legitime.
-
Civil Disobedience and international law sketch for a theoretical argument
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Frederic MegretAbstract:This article argues that there is an increasing trend of Civil society resorting to Civil Disobedience in relation to international legal values. International law, however, has not caught up with this trend. In fact, both international law and Civil Disobedience can gain much from a better understanding of their interaction. The article briefly traces the record of arguments drawn from international law in Civil Disobedience cases, highlights the theoretical constraints of the debate, and seeks to throw some basic foundations for an international legal theory of legitimate Civil Disobedience.
Alexander Livingston - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
power for the powerless martin luther king jr s late theory of Civil Disobedience
The Journal of Politics, 2020Co-Authors: Alexander LivingstonAbstract:Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” has been canonized as an essential statement of the political theory of Civil Disobedience. This article examines the early reception of Ki...
Kimberley Brownlee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
two tales of Civil Disobedience a reply to david lefkowitz
Res Publica, 2018Co-Authors: Kimberley BrownleeAbstract:In his article ‘In Defence of Penalizing (but not Punishing) Civil Disobedience’, David Lefkowitz (2017) neatly maps out the differences between his and my defences of the moral right to Civil Disobedience. We disagree, first, about its grounds and, second, about its scope. Concerning the grounds, I argue that the right to Civil Disobedience is grounded in people’s rights to freedom of expression and conscientious action. By contrast, Lefkowitz, like Raz (1979) and others, argues that it is grounded in people’s political participation rights, that is, broadly, their rights to have an equal say over lawmaking. Concerning the scope, I argue that the right to Civil Disobedience provides people with defeasible normative protection against all forms of state interference with their acts of Civil Disobedience including penalisation. By contrast, Lefkowitz argues that the right protects against punishment, but not against penalisation for Civil Disobedience. Let me take each disagreement in turn. With respect to the grounds, Lefkowitz and I might try to call a truce and agree that, like many other rights, the right to Civil Disobedience is grounded in a plurality of values and interests.
-
the Civil Disobedience of edward snowden a reply to william scheuerman
Philosophy & Social Criticism, 2016Co-Authors: Kimberley BrownleeAbstract:This paper responds to William Scheuerman’s analysis of Edward Snowden as someone whose acts fit within John Rawls’s account of Civil Disobedience understood as a public, non-violent, conscientious breach of law performed with overall fidelity to law and a willingness to accept punishment. This paper rejects the narrow Rawlsian notion in favour of a broader notion of Civil Disobedience understood as a constrained, conscientious and communicative breach of law that demonstrates opposition to law or policy and a desire for lasting change. The paper shows that, according to Rawls’s unduly narrow conception, Edward Snowden is not a Civil disobedient. But, according to the more plausible, broader conception, he is. The paper then identifies some advantages of the broader conception in contemporary analyses of new forms of Disobedience including globalised Disobedience and digital Disobedience.
-
conscience and conviction the case for Civil Disobedience
2012Co-Authors: Kimberley BrownleeAbstract:The book shows that Civil Disobedience is generally more defensible than private conscientious objection. Part I explores the morality of conviction and conscience. Each of these concepts informs a distinct argument for Civil Disobedience. The conviction argument begins with the communicative principle of conscientiousness (CPC). According to the CPC, having a conscientious moral conviction means not just acting consistently with our beliefs and judging ourselves and others by a common moral standard. It also means not seeking to evade the consequences of our beliefs and being willing to communicate them to others. The conviction argument shows that, as a constrained, communicative practice, Civil Disobedience has a better claim than private objection does to the protections that liberal societies give to conscientious dissent. This view reverses the standard liberal picture which sees private 'conscientious' objection as a modest act of personal belief and Civil Disobedience as a strategic, undemocratic act whose costs are only sometimes worth bearing. The conscience argument is narrower and shows that genuinely morally responsive Civil Disobedience honours the best of our moral responsibilities and is protected by a duty-based moral right of conscience. Part II translates the conviction argument and conscience argument into two legal defences. The first is a demands-of-conviction defence. The second is a necessity defence. Both of these defences apply more readily to Civil Disobedience than to private Disobedience. Part II also examines lawful punishment, showing that, even when punishment is justifiable, Civil disobedients have a moral right not to be punished.
-
Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience
2012Co-Authors: Kimberley BrownleeAbstract:This paper looks at two types of dissent that are generally described as conscientious, namely, Civil Disobedience and conscientious objection. Both practices raise pressing normative questions about the proper parameters of dissenters’ rights and duties in a reasonably good society. They also raise questions about both the scope of legitimate toleration of assertions of conscientiousness and the appropriate legal and political responses to conscientious Disobedience. The paper gives a qualified endorsement of the moral justifiability of these two practices. It also explores their credentials as moral rights and their legal defensibility. The paper challenges the dominant liberal view that, in relation to both moral rights and legal defenses, a more compelling case can be made for private conscientious objection than for Civil Disobedience.
-
the communicative aspects of Civil Disobedience and lawful punishment
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2007Co-Authors: Kimberley BrownleeAbstract:A parallel may be drawn between the communicative aspect of Civil Disobedience and the communicative aspect of lawful punishment by the state. In punishing an offender, the state seeks to communicate both its condemnation of the crime committed and its desire for repentance and reformation on the part of the offender. Similarly, in Civilly disobeying the law, a disobedient seeks to convey both her condemnation of a certain law or policy and her desire for recognition that a lasting change in policy is required. When disobedients and authorities target each other, their confrontation allows for a direct comparison of the respective justifiability of their conduct. Their confrontation is explored in this paper with an eye to analysing how Civil disobedients and authorities should engage with each other.
Man Yee Karen Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
lawyers and hong kong s democracy movement from electoral politics to Civil Disobedience
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Man Yee Karen LeeAbstract:Research on Hong Kong lawyers has so far focused on their internal differences and the rise of cause lawyering. Not much has been done on their role in promoting political liberalism. This paper fills a gap by reviewing the history of lawyers’ political activism before and after Hong Kong’s sovereignty shifted from a liberal-colonial to an authoritarian regime in 1997. It argues, first, that Hong Kong’s post-colonial constitutionalized politics and prolonged democratic deficit have given the legal complex — which includes lawyers and also increasingly legal academics — a key role in its pro-democracy movement, and second, critical political junctures have driven activist lawyers to use various means, from electoral politics to Civil Disobedience, to defend the rule of law and Hong Kong’s tortuous democratization.