
Vol. I, Book 2, Ch. 22 http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d2b.html, as translated by John Scott (1999)
Dialogus (1494)
1960s, Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963)
Context: In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
Vol. I, Book 2, Ch. 22 http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d2b.html, as translated by John Scott (1999)
Dialogus (1494)
19 December 1749
Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman (1774)
Collected Works, Vol. 14, pp. 17–362.
Collected Works
In Re Ward (1862), 31 Beav. 7.
Source: Costly Grace (1937), p. 45
“No man can justly censure or condemn another, because indeed no man truly knows another.”
Section 4
Religio Medici (1643), Part II