Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc,net.legal
Subject: Re: Falwell supporting violence
Message-ID: <11497@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 13:12:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11497
Posted: Wed Jan 22 13:12:11 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:58:51 EST
References: <704@cylixd.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.religion:8997 net.misc:9185 net.legal:2771
Summary: correction to previous posting

> I don't recall the Rev. Falwell ever advocating anything violent
> explicitly. (His pledged support of South Africa might be construed
> as an implicit endorsement, however.) But certainly he did not 
> advocate bombing abortion clinics, did he?
> 
> Dave Kirby    ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)

Let me correct this since my statement was misleading. 
Suppose Mr. Auto-Dial feels that Falwell's activities amount
to a support of violence in various forms.  Now, as some
have pointed out, classifying something as "civil 
disobedience" doesn't make it morally right.  However,
in our society we tend to draw a moral distinction between
run-of-othe-mill criminal activities, and civil-diobedience
type activities that are also illegal.  If your personal
morals only allow an absolute, black-and-white sense
of right and wrong, you probably can't appreciate the 
difference, and probably consider Mr. Auto-Dial a
criminal threat to freedom.  
    One condition for an action to be regarded as an
act of civil disobedience is a perception on the part
of the perpetrator that the target of the act is
harmful to society.  (Obviously, there will be no general
agreement on this point.)  I merely wanted to point out
that our Mad Dialer surely has this perception.

steve