Here is my first assignment: Suggest a current law you believe is unethical. Would you be willing to violate that law openly and willingly accept the punishment as Dr. King did, in order to change the law?
Rather than speaking of a current law, I am going to relate a story that happened to me in 1995. I was a brand new graduate of the Utah College of Massage Therapy. As a Licensed Massage Therapist, I leased an office on Main Street in Provo Utah, printed business cards, and decorated my office. It was a dream come true to own my own business. As a nurse and massage therapist I was set to work under doctor’s orders as I specialized in injury recovery from motor vehicle accidents and worker’s comp. Just when I was about to open my doors for business, I found out a horrible realization. Provo had a law that stated you could not have a massage business in the downtown area. Needless to say, this was a throw back from an era when the medical benefits of massage was not widely understood. Frankly, the law was to prevent prostitution. I was devastated. I couldn't relocate without breaking my lease, tossing my newly printed business cards, and saying good buy to an office I loved. What to do? What were the chances of me getting caught? And if I was caught what would happen? Would I have an arrest record? Would I have to do jail time? Would they even care? Mind you, this was Utah in the 1990s. When I talked about being a massage therapist, most people did think I was a prostitute. So, maybe I would do jail time. Instead of it scaring me off, it made me mad. I thought the law was unjust and misinformed. I had no idea what kind of battle I would be up against, but I decided to get the law changed if I could. Long story short, that’s what I did. Had I not been able to change the law, would I have been willing to do what Martin Luther King did? Maybe not then, but I sure would now. If I feel justified, I will stand up for what I believe and fight for it.
The problem as I see it, is what is just and what is unjust? I like the examples Dr. King gave in his speech. He pointed out that the Boston Tea Party was a massive act of civil disobedience, yet we see it today as a brave act that helped win our freedom. Likewise, he reminds us that much of what Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and sanctioned by many. I’m sure the fine folks of Provo would have been aghast if they knew I wanted to change a law that could promote prostitution in their city. So, who is correct? And how do we decide which is which?
I especially like Dr. King’s example of healing the boil. As a healer I have long used this example for emotional healing, it must be exposed despite its ugliness in order for it to be cleaned and exposed to the light of day - a tried and true method of any king of healing. Martin Luther King states that like the boil, “Injustice must be exposed to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion”. I believe these conversations combined with critical thinking can lead us to know what is truly just.
And here is my response to someone else's post (Part of the assignment is that we keep the conversation going)
I appreciate what you said Courtney. And I agree, Dr. King had a lot of important things to say about the poor that we so often miss. It is such a shame that he died early. What more could he have accomplished had he been able to live? Yet, thinking about Dr. King also brings up a consideration in my mind. Is the ethics of the messenger important or should we just focus on the message? I do not consider Dr. King to be an ethical man. He states that a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. And he says that an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. He goes on to say that any law that uplifts human personality is just and any law that degrades human personality is unjust. Again and again he refers to his Christian beliefs and the law of God. And yet he goes against his own beliefs in having extramarital affairs. Personally, I don’t care if he is faithful to his wife or not, it’s none of my business. Unless of course, he is asking me to believe his words and talks about laws of God. I can’t help but feel that his wife and lovers did not feel particularly uplifted by some of his actions and words. So, do I skip the ethics of the messenger and go straight to the message? What messenger is perfect, and what will I miss if I get mired down with imperfections? Yet, I find the words tainted. I am at a loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment