Prometheus 6

and I'm not an adherent to the religion of money. both are mere cultural artifacts subject to conscience (objective morality)...,

Legality and morality are not antipodes.  They are more like Venn diagrams.

It wasn't presented as a dichotomy.

Where the two differ, we can tell which you cherish.

P6,

Sir, I'm finding it a little hard to conceptualize the argument, because the few examples that I can sum up Segregation laws, Death Penalty, Same-sex marriage etc, takes me to another philosophical tangent i.e. laws are created with certain moral codes embedded within them and usually these moral codes are interpreted narrowly when they are translated into legal codes. For most of us who struggle against entrenched institutional oppression the questions (as I see it) centers on the use of the moral code (and which moral code i.e. should we base it on religious morality or secular morality) and expanding the legal codes and fairness of the application (why, should give certain civil rights to heterosexual couples but not same-sex couples).

Hope this makes sense, I'll come back to it if it doesn't.

You're talking whys and wherefores, and I'm stuck on the whats. I see a lot of noise about the rule of law and about morality and I don't see anyone hewing to either.

Sooner or later everyone hits the point where their morality yields to the situation on the ground; sooner or later everyone bends the rules. And if you push them in either case, you get to the "I don't know, I just do!" point. I do not exclude myself from this. 

laws are created with certain moral codes embedded within them and usually these moral codes are interpreted narrowly when they are translated into legal codes.

As a practical matter I consider all laws to be conditions I must meet to get where I want to go. 

As a practical matter I consider all laws to be conditions I must meet to get where I want to go.

 In fact, they're conditions you're required to meet in order for you to get where others insist that you go or not go...,

Like you, I can only speak for myself.

that subset of laws which seek to impose personal moral judgement - as for example drug prohibition or denying female control of the reproductive prerogative - demand criminal resistance because they treat your being as property.

So what criminal acts are you committing to resist those laws?

cause if I told you, I'd have to kill you...., 

You know it's interesting that when black people talk about racism, the John Edwardses of the world immediately talk about town things: Poverty, and Education. Let's look at these two things.

I believe it was Ghandi that said "Poverty is the worst form of violence", just like how AIDS is a form of violence. On the second subject Education, surely some here have heard the saying "If someone won't treat you right, what makes you think they will teach you right?"

I think it's time for black people ( and I do believe we are getting smarter by the way, logically) to get out of the cycle of circular logic, and force everyone around us to make a decision between making sure nobody is mistreated......period, making sure that those that need help the most, get that help, OR the status quo. I think that is a slightly better definition of what justice really is than Webster's.

But justice directly conflicts with White Supremacy. Therein lies the problem. My strategy is to isolate the White Supremacists by getting them on the record as opposing the implementation of justice. The racists will only reveal themselves as enemies of justice.

I think that the ultimate reason black people are on the planet is to help produce justice. Not a utopia, just a place where nobody is mistreated, (and obviously it would have to be enforced) and getting help to those that truly need it the most. So we can keep free markets and the like, just without the mistreatment that isn't necessary anyway. There would still be room for philanthropy because those that need help the most would be getting it.

One day when and if this happens, we'll look back on how smart we thought we were.