What if a majority of Alabamans support lighting the cross mentioned above on fire, while it's in the middle of the courthouse? Is that still "civil disobedience"?

I think the issue with King is that they didn’t have the ability to change the law or the constitution or anything else. One of the principals of the constitution is to specifically protect the rights of minority voices. But there is still an avenue left for the people of Alabama so to say they are disenfranchised is not entirely true. But let's say for the sake of argument that they are justified in their civil disobedience, what would they wish for the courts to do? Reverse the ruling based on the, "Well we didn't know how much this meant to you" test? And if they did would that not mean that those who see a God and all the trappings of religious dogma as little more then fairy tales have an equal excuse to engage in counter civil disobedience?

Do they not have the right to petition their representatives to present a bill to create the "Defense of religious paraphernalia on public grounds" amendment? A truly disenfranchised person would not have that avenue available to them, no?

Personally I think the who thing is a tempest in a teapot but I can imagine the stink if a judge was elected and wanted to put the code of Hammurabi next to it.

Rick: If you're allowed to vote but the majority's will gets overridden by judicial fiat, the practical effect is to have not been able to vote. In that way, the Fundamentalists are no different from the blacks of the 1960s. Blacks had the right to try to get Constitutional amendments passed, too.

Ironically, had Moore "put the code of Hammurabi next to it," he'd have been perfectly within the law.

As much as I don't want to see religious totems erected at the courthouse, I don't think it's worth putting people in jail to avoid.

If you're allowed to vote but the majority's will gets overridden by judicial fiat, the practical effect is to have not been able to vote.

One mans judicial fiat is another mans protection against the tyranny of the majority.

Ar you saying that black citizens of the civil rights era were on equal political footing as the contemporary Christian majority in Alabama. If yes do you predict that anyone attempting to block the removal of the monument will get the fire hose treatment?

I'm just asking the question [grin]

In many ways, tyranny of the majority is preferable to tyranny of a minority. While I disagree with what Moore is doing and think he should be jailed for contempt of court, I'm much more sympathetic to that than judicial override of the federal nature of our system.

Overall, of course the comparison of 1960s blacks and current Evangelicals doesn't stand up. But civil disobedience can be more narrowly focused. Many Evangelicals would argue that they are indeed being oppressed because the society is denying what they think are fundamental rights endowed by their creator.

---