Talk:Passive obedience

Untitled
"Passive obedience is ... refuse to follow that religion as required by law, but willingly accept any punishment for not so following. Compare to passive resistance, refusal to follow a law while willingly accepting punishment for that refusal." So what is the difference? --Henrygb 16:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputation
Yeah, this is more or less completely wrong. Editing as we speak (though not really expanding--there's not that much to say, or at least I don't have time to do the details). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearwig (talk • contribs)


 * This is indeed (still) completely wrong. I've added the 'disputed' template to flag this up to readers as I couldn't find anything stronger.  I'd tidy it up myself, but I don't feel I know enough to write a decent, structured article about its proponents, development and influence.  Thus I have also added an 'expert' template as the required detail needs someone who understands the politics/theology overlap.  2.123.220.105 (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition given in the article is right, passive obedience was a component of Anglican/Tory theology. It just needs to be sourced.--Britannicus (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the definition is indeed wrong. Or, at least, ambiguous, as the emphasis is entirely wrong. Currently the definition in the article is passive obedience = "the absolute supremacy of the Crown and the treatment of any dissent (or more precisely, disobedience) as sinful and unlawful". This is a mix of accurate and inaccurate. And none of it attempts to describe 'passive obedience', but the State's attitude towards it. What follows is a list of disordered facts, and the line about 'passive resistance' is confused (it is in effect the same thing, without the theological baggage). Let me quote Boucher (On Civil Liberty, 1775) as a good start-point,

I had in mind, however, an expert looking at the development from its roots in Protestant/Anglican theology via Lancelot Andrews etc and then tracing its influence through to early c20 political theory. As I said, though, I don't feel confident of doing a decent job myself (this is really not my period!), so the floor is open ... :) 2.123.220.105 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be two different articles - 1 for the early 18th century English concept, the other for the doctrine of passive obedience in Reformed theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.178.102 (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Jan. 12 editor is quite right. "Active and Passive Obedience" had a theological origin, though it was of immediate practical consequence, and was older than the 18th Century (Thomas Hobbes, e.g., described and rejected it in 1647: De Cive, Ch. 14.23).  The basic doctrine could be summarized thus:
 * Active obedience: obeying the law.
 * Passive obedience: disobeying the law yet willingly paying the penalty (if by obeying a law one did something forbidden by God, then, so long as he willingly payed the legal penalty, he allegedly could disobey the law and yet be called obedient). Since disobedience is "sin", but this person was said to be obedient, even though he disobeyed the law, he allegedly had not committed a sin. The above Boucher quotation nicely states these things.


 * For obvious reasons, some opposed the former position. Of these, some seem to have argued that the phrase "passive obedience" could only signify complete obedience. This is why Boucher denounces the "enemies" of his view for saying that "p. o." was "unlimited obedience".


 * Mr. or Ms. January 12, I think you have plenty of wherewithal to put together a nice account with references (you plainly have a much broader awareness of relevant parties than I do, at any rate). Even a brief one, like a new first paragraph, would be a great improvement.


 * tl;dr: the article is misleading. It should begin with the more "theological" concept. Generally, the subject suffers at least 3 possible complications: 1st, the original concept is problematic (logically and politically). 2nd, the phrase was consciously used in mutually exclusive ways. 3rd, some men (like Boucher) used it in the original way, and yet simultaneously believed themselves to be upholding political authority against doctrines tending toward disobedience. --AnotherRho (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)