Most religious doctrines from day one forward are protean in nature and thus open to different readings. One idea still common to all is that he Absolute is capable of creating transcendences in living persons; even with “one Absolute for all”, there are clergy even in same faiths and religions who split between urging political submissiveness and quietism, and ratifying that in theory questioning, resisting, or deposing authority can particularly be possible before the Absolute…and such ambivalence results in a very important mental and social brake.
Indeed, when “called, but underexposed” clergy or persons of ordinary and secular cast seek to “raise consciousness” on ethics against religious themes or in opposition to them, the result too often has been the likes of dictators, bin Laden, endless guillotiner Robespierre, Jim Jones, and so on…thus, usually it’s good to preach against populist anarchy, and rarify usurpation of government to the likes of the signers of the USA Declaration Of Independence; largely, they had a case where a king was taxing them but not even providing security or Judges, and they just thought they’d fill vacancies to do what otherwise England had done prior to George III. Also, where human rights given by God and so admitted to through laws, treaties, or resolutions are ignored to “license” say Auschwitz, obviously (ala George III) HUMAN-based reasons exist for resisting or usurping offices to restore normalcy.
But all merely human reasons open themselves up to bartering away or regulation, usually on the ground claimed “conscience” is purely an a posteriori affectation or apperception of the mind borne wholly on one’s unique social perspective, with no connection to choosing between spiritual good and evil on some universally given free will for such purpose. Where this is the case, it’s proper to not supplant existent authority; e.g., some untutored mercenary takes off a helmet, puts on a turban/yarmulke/mitre/robe/Office Of Faith-Funded Initiatives/whatever, simply announces “yep, I’m holy now and master theologian, case closed!”, then goes about playing God for earthly influence…such would seem psychology, and probably criminal psychology at that.
Speaking of the Absolute’s take on relevant human affairs, most faiths appear well-settled that the Absolute favors order (in souls or beings of the high and low, not just in society)and permits us to live with effects of choosing or tolerating unwisely for as long as we alone desire to stay out of the Absolute’s order.
For example, the ancient Chinese “Mandate of Heaven” doctrine made rulers Sons of Heaven, yet the mandate was not granted in perpetuity or unconditionally; Heaven demanded righteousness and good government and deposed rulers who abused office.
In Christianity, deterministic quietism was largely the “brake” created by (St.) Augustine of Hippo and later echoed by Martin Luther: God appoints rulers according to the merits of people, lets just as well as rotten rulers reign, thus none may be resisted. It should be noted that as an Augustinian monk, Luther based his theology largely on the personal muse of Augustine of Hippo, both men in their day highly internationally personally influential in their own affairs and seeing little value in Vatican Councils or similar collegiate contemplations beyond their own opinions.
This quietism in Luther’s day was rebutted by a disciple of Calvin, Theodore Beza, who asked without negative answer why it couldn’t be God’s will that tyrants are admonished by the people instead of the people by tyrants? The Christian humanist John Milton echoed Beza. So well-edified lay religious opined; any theologian to speak?
Between the days of St. Augustine and later Luther, in circa 1110, Hugh of Fleury taught in “De Regia Potestate” that God punishes bad princes with the insubordination of their people; this is also the view in Eastern Christianity, and the Vatican disfavors yet doesn’t completely bar all resistances in the West or world insofar as Roman Catholicism.
Outside original Chinese or Christian-relevant philosophies, even Buddhism and Hinduism join the rest in affording rarified pinholes for non-millenarian resistances.
My compact attempt to edify on this topic is hardly exhaustive in re theological data thereon; it doesn’t appear that spiritually one loses grace or is acting purely from cultural bravado over dissenting ala USA Founding Fathers, nor over using Courts to test limits of government power, nor in simply not doing what one believes is not right. However, grace likely WOULD be lost in ignoring rationally-observed improprieties, or in taking part in anarchistic, narcissistic, aimless, vengeful, or similar lashing out at or holding in sub-human regard ANY person(s)…and by mere parallel coincidence, make a transgressor true fodder for secular justice authorities as well.
The Almighty is spirit communicating and creating through reason, we are created in the Almighty’s image meaning our souls with some power of reasoning, and we best emulate the Almighty when we don’t abuse, neglect, or set aside challenges presented to us, let body rule soul, or like the cast-out Lucifer believe some of God’s sentient creations are more “worthy” than others to even ever exist or have a chance.
This applies to all life’s happenings, including deciding to lucidly comply or not comply with authority. Most usually, a good way to involve oneself with socially helping others is to get involved with ULC Monastery efforts like supporting "OxFam" and "Amnesty International".
to look up in my dictionary), and a good philosophy.
Rev. Dean