With 230,631 signatories (Tuesday, Dec. 1, 10:13 p.m. CT), which include prominent Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox religious leaders, one would think that the Manhatten Declaration would be a good thing. Not according to the Los Angeles Times:
Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that perpetuated white supremacy — with the understanding that they would face punishment for their actions. But such civil disobedience is rightly regarded as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution.
That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation’s laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King’s witness.
One would think that by opposing abortion and same-sex marriage, that is, by not participating in them as a form of civil protest, these crazy Manhattan Declaration Christians would next be brandishing torches and pitchforks as they hunt down the Liberal Frankenstein Monster. Oh my!
So, what do you think of the Manhattan Declaration? I took a look and decided that I wouldn't sign it, because it's just too ecumenical-ish for my comfort. If it made a clearer distinction that it's speaking in "left-hand" terms, which seems to be the overall intention, I would have loved to sign on.