The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1953-09-18
Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience the subject of address
the other day by DR.. David Spih of the political
science faculty of Ohio State University. He
speaking IN Washington before the American Po-
htica Science Association. reading of the
paper report of the address leaves something TO be
desired There is suspicion that perhaps the good
doctor might unwittingy be defending those who
have been refusing TO answer questions put to them
by duly authorized investigating committee of the
civil government
A man who, honestly in accord with his moral
principles refuses TO obey lave or answer ques-
tions OF congressional investigating committee
cannot be said Ito have denied his fundamental OBJ
legation either good man good citizen" the
report stated quoting DR.. Spltz. The professor made
1t clear that this Is so long the mans ''act of
disobedience is calculated-taking the whole sit
ulation into view-to achieve greater good than
is likely to be achieved by acquescence"
Or. Spitz told his audience that If man does not
regard laws demanding affirmatons OF loyalty OF
sustaining legislative inquiries into one past or
present beliefs and associations or outlaWlng the
expression of revolutionary ideas as crucial viola
ton or threat TO democracy he will obey them. On
the other hand he asserted, if regards them
as destructive of the very principles that constitute
the system TO which he has given his allegiance and
which he is pledged 10 uphold he may see no moral
alternative TO dSobedence.
Now will anyone deny that the reference will
he made here TO the current Investigations of com
munist affiiiation and association? Communism rs
not only threat TO the ideal OF democracy but to
any decent form of government, II Is evil in its
very concept. Would the professor infer that a man
who would think otherwise could be honest and
sincere IN his position? Is communist so dumb that
he is not capable OF knowing the truth, no matter
how often it is presented to him? Only complete
and blsmeless ignorance could excuse him from
taking stand against law prescribing an aftlrma
ton of loyalty in this age OF threat TO good govern
nrent everywhere Does the professor mean 10 infer
that such people would be right morally in taking
stand against answering questions put to them IN
these matters II would seem
Is IL not time that become impatient with
people who go TO such lengths TO defend even un-
vittingly those who refuse 10 testify about their
association with or membership in communist or
ganizations7 Could not the professor have pointed
out that ignorance is the only thing that excuse
these people? Instead he devoted a lot OF time de-
veloping the argument which could conceiyably jus
tify them in their stand suppose that one grants
that they are honest their beliefs, and hence in
their stand. Are they therefore excused for being
50 ignorant of clear fundamental morality? Is II inn
moral by any stretch of the imagination TO deny
membership in or affiiiaton with communist or
gannations?
II is sinful 10 dsobey rlghtfully enacted Just
laws OF the government. Even when there is defect
in the Law in its application, the citizen must
weigh whether his dsobedence will not be greater
evil through scandal through increase of disrespeet
10 all Law than would be his own personal obed-
ience Dsrespect for law is already too rampant.
There are too many who adopt the principle that II
is all right to disobey civil law long as one
does not get caught. There may be some unjust
laws in these United States but the ones which
would ferret out those who would destroy our
whole system OF government not among them.
II is therefore definitely immoral to disobey them,
and only the most ignorance could excuse.