During
the Vietnam War, young men like me faced a life-altering choice: participate (and perhaps die) in a war any of
us considered immoral or assert our consciences and convictions and pay the
price. I obeyed my draft notice but
failed the induction physical. Some friends,
though, chose the second option; one renounced his American citizenship and has
spent the rest of his life in Sweden, and another claimed (and was confirmed
in) conscientious objector status. In
the latter case, he still wasn’t off the hook; had he been drafted, he’d still
have had to participate in the war in some non-combatant capacity.
I’m
a huge admirer of Henry David Thoreau; in fact, his work, along with the
writings of other American Transcendentalists, was the focus of my professional
career. Especially influential was his
1849 essay, Civil Disobedience. It was an extremist’s argument, a call to
follow one’s conscience above all else (in fact, the full title is On The Duty
of Civil Disobedience.) It was a
response to two great evils: slavery and
the Mexican War. “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect
for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right
to assume is to do at any time what I think right,” he wrote. Powerful stuff. Gandhi adopted it to win India’s independence. Famously, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the
other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement applied it as the core principle of
the movement against racist oppression.
And, of course, it was immensely attractive and inspirational to those
resisting the Vietnam War.
Once
again, it’s become a powerful influence in American politics. Opponents of same-sex marriage are claiming
the right to provide commercial or governmental services to same-sex couples,
and they have strong religious convictions to invoke. Legislators in states such as Kansas, Georgia
and Mississippi have pushed “religious liberty” bills designed to shield such claimants
from punishment for their acts of conscience.
Don’t
they deserve my respect in the same way that Civil Rights and anti-war
activists do? Aren’t they following in
the hallowed footsteps of my hero Thoreau?
No. Absolutely not. There is nothing moral or
heroic about it.
A
true act of conscience involves sacrifice.
Thoreau refused to pay a tax that would, ultimately, fund the Mexican
War—and he went to jail for his act. He wrote: “… if I deny the authority of
the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my
property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This
makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time
comfortably, in outward respects.”
Those who refused to obey Jim Crow laws were jailed, often beaten, even
murdered. Those who refused to be
drafted were jailed or forced to leave their homes and families for a foreign
country. Such is the price of true civil
disobedience.
What
does a baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple
sacrifice? Their business license? So be
it. A business license is a contract, a civil duty, to serve all citizens, whether they adhere to one’s
religious precepts or not. To willingly
lose it is a truly courageous act, worthy of my respect. But to be protected by the State, free from
consequences? That’s not courage; it’s a
cop-out.
