There are two ways to protest

Yes, there are two ways to protest - the effective way and the ineffective way.  The first way moves you closer to your actual goals, the other way does not move you to your goal and may, in fact, move you away from your goal - that is unless your goal is to not actually to achieve anything positive but is instead to give oneself a feeling of righteousness and a false sense of moral superiority.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists certainly were effective in their method of protest - it was their protests that lead to actual legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That law and others led to a gradual improvement in the lives of many minority citizens and, in fact, all Americans.  The achievements are undeniable and we are lucky to have had a Martin Luther King Jr. in our midst.

For me, the hallmark of MLK's method of protest was that it was actually peaceful and the only laws that might be broken were the very laws that were unjust. Laws against blocking traffic, rioting and so on are not unjust laws and he did not encourage any of this kind of lawbreaking. Also, he advocated boycotts of the offending systems of discrimination and this was also an elegant tool in the toolbox of this great American.

MLK did not promote the breaking of windows of storefronts or throwing rocks at police even though the stores may have discriminated against them and the police forces were pawns of white supremacists.  He and other civil rights leaders and marchers took their lumps and spent time in jail but they did not engage in criminal mischief and did not victimize others in retaliation for the massive injustices perpetrated against them.  They and their co-protesters were the bravest of the brave.

On the other hand there were many protesters in that same period who did throw rocks at police and burned down businesses that they resented.  They also harmed the lives of innocent bystanders as well.  Did they get the results they desired?  If you are talking about improving the lives of the oppressed, it is doubtful.  This kind of behavior is not likely to move someone to your side if they are currently on the fence.  Lawmakers similarly do not like being coerced by the threat of violence.  However, if you believe the goal of violent protesters was retribution and a selfish goal of self-righteousness, they probably succeeded in achieving those empty gestures.

That little bit of background brings us quickly to today where we have the example of two kinds of protests that occurred in the last week.  The first and largest protests were the well organized and properly permitted Women's Marches that occurred all over the U.S.  I attended the march in Manhattan and it was an amazing event.  The general theme was a protest against President Trump's apparent misogyny epitomized by his bragging about his own pattern of sexual assault, later confirmed by alleged actual victims.  It was an amazing chain of events; Trump had confessed (via video of an old TV show) followed by over 10 women claiming to having been his victims, to his denial of ever doing what he bragged about doing followed by his incredibly insulting rants against his accusers!  All was forgiven by Trump's supporters as he predicted - he had said that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they would still vote for him.  He was pretty much correct.

Obviously the protest was peaceful - supposedly 1,000,000 people participated around the country and only about 4 arrests were reported.  A week or so later the marches had an approval rating of about 60% which is pretty good considering 40% or so of the country supports the President.  This is how you conduct a protest.  There is hope that a movement was begun with these marches.

In contrast, on 2/1/17, "protests that erupted at UC Berkeley ahead of a planned Wednesday appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus, the school said Thursday.  The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.  Two Berkeley College Republicans "were attacked while conducting an interview" on the campus on Thursday, UC Berkeley also said in a prepared statement. The attackers, who were not affiliated with the university, were taken into custody by UC Berkeley police."  (Go to http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/)  The appearance was canceled.

If you wanted to promote Milo Yiannopolous (a Breitbart contributor) and increase his popularity, this was the absolute best way to do it.  Imagine the mileage Milo will get out of this incident!  He will look like the free speech champion and those who object to his misogynistic and race baiting style will become associated with censorship and violence by those looking on from afar.  This outcome is far better for Yiannopolous than actually giving the speech.

The protesters got it all wrong; they should have boycotted the event or held an alternative event.  What they should not have done, above all other things, is perpetrate violence and prevent free speech even by a loathsome individual.  That is the wrong way to protest - the ineffective way.

Here is my message to those who are not happy with the President or his apologists: Do not give the administration ammunition to drum up popular support to effectively prohibit dissent.  I personally do not care whether you do feel morally superior or self righteous or not.  I care about the results.

Opposite Think; Religious Freedom is the Opposite of What They Think It Is

On September 8, 2015, a Kentucky County clerk who had been refusing to issue any marriage licences ever since same-sex marriage was upheld was let out of jail after marriage licences began to be issued to all qualified applicants, including same sex couples by the office in which she works.  A judge ordered her deputy clerks to issue the licences.  It remains to be seen whether she will interfere with the issuance of these licences now that she is out of jail.  Her current objection is that same sex marriage offends her religious sensibilities and that her name appears on the paperwork implying her approval even if she does not issue the licence and she is appealing the case based on that objection.

While it was probably ill-advised for the judge to give this clerk the martyrdom she had been seeking by sending her to jail, her obstinate behavior was proving difficult to counter.  How could the judge force her to obey the law after all?  Fines would probably have been a good idea even though they would have been paid easily by her supporters on her behalf.  The licences still would not have been issued.

Tactics aside, the situation raises a number of questions such as "should she be made to violate her 'religious conscience' so that the rule of law is upheld?"  This generally is a argument whose conclusion depends on how you define "religious freedom" as enumerated in the First Amendment.

The quick and easy answer is the rule of law must prevail BUT if it violates your conscience, religious or otherwise, and you defy it, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of its violation.  This does not mean you can break other laws to signal your opposition to the law in question; no, it means you violate the law in question and hope that the application of the consequences awakens the conscience of the nation in opposition to the supposedly odious law.

This is what Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters did when they broke the Jim Crow laws, tried to vote or tried to defy any of the racist segregation laws.  He did not break other laws and he did not commit violence.  He also spent much time in jail suffering the consequences of the laws he broke.  His cause ultimately prevailed in the sense that laws enforcing segregation were eventually outlawed because he indeed did awaken the conscience of the country.  Thank goodness for Martin Luther King, Jr.

So in this sense the County Clerk is working from the Civil Rights playbook.  The question then becomes is whether she is indeed fighting for Religious Freedom and against tyranny.  The answer to this is, pretty much obviously, no, she is not fighting for Religious Freedom.

The comparison to the Civil Rights era is again very useful. First of all, this case actually has nothing to do with religion on a legal level - no one cares why the Clerk is not issuing marriage licences to all qualified applicants.  Her reasons could be arbitrary and capricious or well thought out.  Her reasons are irrelevant.  If an atheist or Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Catholic  or Jedi Knight were to refuse to issue the licences, they would all be in trouble.  The problem is NOT what she believes, it's in her behavior.

That makes all the talk about religious freedom totally bogus since her religious beliefs are simply irrelevant to her being jailed.  An atheist would be heading for that same jail if they did the same thing.

We then come down to whether a person has a right, as a government employee and County Clerk, to not give out marriage licences to mixed race couples (for whatever reason) as occurred pre-Civil Rights or to same sex couples (for whatever reason) as is occurring here.  Obviously the answer is no, there is no such right.

And no, this County Clerk does not want religious freedom; she wants Religious Privilege.  She wants to obey the laws she wants to obey according to her religion in a way the violates the religious beliefs of others.  That is the definition of privilege and is the opposite of Religious Freedom.  Yes, this is Opposite Think.