Kim Davis, Edward Snowden: Justifying Civil Disobedience

I am a conservative Christian and a straight-down-the-middle moderate when it comes to economic and government policy. While I recognize and admire the heart that each of them have (Kim Davis’s faith principles and Snowden’s convictions about federal deceit of the public), I disagree with the eventual actions each of them took based on their convictions.

While Snowden’s exposés align nicely with the ideals of capitalism (all citizens have access to equal and perfect information) and American democracy (freedom from invasive and oppressive government), the end result was public endangerment and uncertainty. It was not a straightforward scandal that could be cleaned up with an apology and perhaps a resignation. He acted impulsively, foolishly, and without accountability, then fled to a country famous for persecuting journalists, restricting free speech, and murdering those who get in the way of the government.

I have more to say about Kim Davis, who has been draped with comparisons to Thoreau’s "Civil Disobedience," with a key difference: Thoreau went to jail voluntarily and without complaint, and explained eloquently why he did it. Kim Davis and her supporters seem eager to jump on the I’m-being-persecuted bandwagon. Her intent and reasoning are less at fault than her methods. She’s shamelessly courted lawyers and the media, and in one video that particularly galled me, was shown at a rally after exiting prison with her fists over her head like a prizefighter who has scored a knockout.
Has she forgotten the severe persecution of the early church–public execution by lions, drawing and quartering, hanging, torture, stoning, burning alive–which continues today in parts of the world such as North Korea? Has she not read in her bible where Peter says, "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed," or that she as a Christian should live above reproach (her dubious marital history suggest she has not), or that Paul never exhorted Christians to change their governments, but rather to live in accordance wherever they could, giving glory to God rather than themselves when they came under fire for it?
Perhaps she could instead learn from the example of missionary Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen who is about to celebrate his third anniversary in an Iranian prison, despite global pressure for his release, and who has touched millions of lives and paid dearly for it with his years behind bars.

Public civil disobedience based on moral convictions is not inherently good or bad. The validity of the conviction aside, a would-be Thoreau should first examine the moral context of his "firmly held belief" and follow through with an action that honours its spirit, rather than capitalizing on public controversy to make an empty clamour for attention, which may prove disastrous to himself, his cause, or the public.

This post reminded me of an article on the Volokh Conspiracy a few weeks ago that you may enjoy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/kim-davis-and-the-limits-of-disobedience/

relaxing music for stress relief