A Comparison between Civil Disobedience And Letter from a Birmingham Jail - Essay Example

?Full A Comparison Between “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” and Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” express the freedom fighters’ beliefs and principles. King obviously wrote his letter in jail while Thoreau mentioned in his argument his experience of being imprisoned. While the former was imprisoned because of what he fought for, the latter was put to jail because he refused to pay the taxes imposed on him, believing that doing so would be an act of support to the government’s programs such as war and slavery which he disapproves. For King, his imprisonment became the very reason why he wrote his letter while Thoreau’s imprisonment in a way influenced his perceptions and understanding as well as his courage to express his arguments in his article. The two are principled men who did their best to stand on what they believed in even in the midst of chaos. They both present their discourse on the basis of reason, using quotations from the Bible and well-respected men; seek to be understood, appealing to sense and sensibility of the people concerned who are politicians, Whites, Blacks, and Clergymen as well as discuss just laws, unjust laws, eternal and natural laws. Firstly, the aforementioned freedom fighters reflect in their written works of their influence from the Bible. As a clergyman, it was natural for King to mention God and the Bible but he emphasized how men should work with God to accomplish His purposes here on earth. Despite his co-clergymen’s discourse that the social issues King is fighting for are issues that the gospel has no real concern for, he argues that “human progress comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God”. On the other hand, Thoreau makes his point clear about paying taxes by mentioning Jesus’ response to the Herodians saying, “Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God those things which are God’s”. Furthermore, he also parallels the Herodians’ response to those of modern politicians’ saying, “leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know” and “that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government and they dread the consequences to their property and families to their disobedience”. Such quotations show how Thoreau uses information from the Bible to reflect on the circumstances he is facing. To make their arguments even stronger, the two authors named and quoted other philosophers such as Socrates, St. Augustine, Martin Buber, Confucius and Paley. King claims that he does not seek to go against government while Thoreau stands on the other side of the balance and they both are expressed the reason for their actions. King debated that he and his colleagues have brought their concern to the people in authority for it to be resolved. However, their pleas for equality and just treatment have been disregarded so that they had to resort to taking action. He presented how they have acted with all the discretion in accordance to the circumstances in Birmingham and explained how they finally have to “create constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth”. Similarly, Thoreau accounts that he is not a man who is violent in expressing himself but, he “quietly declares war with the State”, speaking about his reactions to the demands for him to pay “a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman”. Using the quotations and philosophers mentioned above, the two writers presented their reasonable actions. They effectively explained the principles on which they stand on and tried to persuade their audience using intellectual arguments instead of the violence that they have been perceived to hold. King and Thoreau believe in the existence of unjust laws. King defines and contrasts just and unjust laws to make clear his understanding of the subject. He quotes St. Augustine saying “an unjust law is no law at all” and St. Aquinas belief that “an unjust law is not rooted in eternal and natural laws”. Whatever conforms to the natural law is considered by King as morally right and therefore just. He then proceeds to give examples of unjust laws such as “segregation statutes which distorts the soul and damages the personality”. In his discourse, King maintains a tone that encourages considerations for his arguments, showing what logic he is following in explaining what unjust laws are. Moreover, he puts more emphasis on his opinion by calling the attention to concrete examples of unjust laws such as the law inflicted on the minority, being denied to vote. Such technique that King uses does not only make his disagreements clear but accurate and effective. On the other hand, Thoreau simply states that “unjust laws exist” and goes on to question what people are supposed to do with it. He gives a series of questions that seem to suggest how strong the writer’s emotion is at the moment. The questions make the readers wide awake and in a way, interactive. They provoke strong emotions that make readers feel how the author is feeling and understand what is going on in his mind. Then, he ends by giving another question that mentions people who have been affected by unjust laws such as the crucified Christ, excommunicated Copernicus and Luther as well as Washington and Franklin who were accused of being rebels. In contrast to King’s moderate tone in his explanations, Thoreau expresses an outburst of emotion that stirs similar reactions from his audience such as the provocation of people to actively react to what is going on and not simply obey orders without question. As he further explained unjust laws, he also mentioned examples but with the same strong tone that he used in questioning the circumstances of unjust laws, examining and questioning the laws being implemented. In relation to the nature of unjust laws, King contradicts it to just laws by indirectly mentioning examples on natural laws and implying that these are the ones that “uplift human personality” and which are just. The examples of unjust laws indirectly explain his opinions about natural laws. For instance, in the example given earlier on election, it is a natural law in a democratic country but in America during King’s time, Blacks were not allowed to vote therefore, the natural law is violated and therefore is considered unjust. Contrary to how King expressed his ideas about natural law, Thoreau simply uses a demonstration of what happens when an acorn and chestnut fall side by side. While King used the natural law to show what just and unjust laws are all about, Thoreau uses it as an allusion to how he reacts to his environment and circumstances. He says that as the acorn and chestnut follow the law of nature, growing and thriving until one of them perhaps dies, he also has to grow in his environment in unison with his circumstances and let it be if he is the stronger person, that he will thrive and if not, he would die just as one of the plants will eventually die in the fight for survival. Despite the differences in their approach to explain their thoughts and the techniques that they used, Thoreau and King both effectively explained their discourse. They have shown in a creative manner their similarities, being in and influenced by prison. Their use of Bible quotes and philosophers strengthened their arguments and made their presentations more informative and exciting. They were both argumentative which in a highly intellectual manner which is commendable and they both tackles the issue on unjust and natural laws although in different manners. Read More