Civil Disobedience and The Limits of Protest | Unitarian Universalist Society
Conferences
When is protest justified and when does it go too far? Explore civil disobedience, nonviolence, and the limits of resistance.
Note: This *FREE*
event is to be attended {in person}.
Join us
May 7th
at
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
for a friendly and intellectually engaging experience you won't find anywhere else! Participants are encouraged to come prepared not just with opinions, but with reflection - drawing on history, personal experience, and a willingness to listen across differences.
Here's the night's topic:
Civil disobedience has always involved a kind of moral friction. To protest unjust laws is to break them. In the tradition of leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., nonviolent resistance has long claimed moral authority by refusing harm - physical or verbal, even while resisting power.
But today, that foundation is being questioned. Across the political spectrum, people increasingly feel that the stakes are urgent, even existential.
Some argue that nonviolence is essential - that once a movement turns to violence, it risks losing both legitimacy and purpose. Others ask whether nonviolence is always sufficient, especially when injustice feels urgent, when institutions seem unresponsive, or when harm feels immediate and entrenched. Yet others contend that speech itself can be a form of violence - that words can wound, exclude, dehumanize, and create real psychological and social harm. If that is true, then the boundary between “nonviolent” and “violent” becomes far less clear.
This conversation invites us to wrestle with difficult questions - without assuming easy answers:
Is civil disobedience defined by its willingness to break the law - or by its refusal to harm?
Is nonviolence a moral principle, a strategy, or both? And what happens when those come into tension?
What changes when one side becomes violent? What changes when both sides do?
What happens to a movement’s moral compass when leadership is unclear or absent?
Can a movement maintain legitimacy - and effectiveness - if it abandons nonviolence?
What happens to a society when different groups operate with fundamentally different definitions of harm, violence, and justice?
Links related to the conversation:
You’re Not Protesting Like Dr. King
by The Free Press
Is Violent Protest Ever Justified?
By The Prindle Institute
Gen Z Is Much More Supportive of Political Violence
by NewsWeek
Tickets are free, but donations help.
Donations support Braver Angels, 501(c)3.
** This event is open to the media upon approval. Send requests to press@braverangels.org.
Information Source: eventbrite
