Wine Of Astonishment Analysis

1217 Words5 Pages
If historical figures decided to follow the rules and accept the norms of society, then many of the rights that has developed to this day would not have occurred. Simply a person who breaks the rule cannot be generalized as an unjust person, but should be judged upon why the person has broken those rules. In the Wine of Astonishment and throughout history it can be seen that laws, people had to obey under were not necessarily just and equal. Therefore, it can also mean the law makers only consider the vast majority of the people and not consider the minorities. Bee Dorcas, who is the pastor for the Shouter Baptist in Bonasse was confronted by the banning of his religion from the Crown Colony system, but made a decision to break the law by giving…show more content…
The evidence of why Bee was unjust is because the pastor was breaking the law of that system, which specifically stated that the Shouter Baptist religion is not to be practiced by any people under the British colony. Sandel wrote a book about justice and he explains that “laws cannot banish greed, but they can at least restrain its most brazen expression, and signal society’s disapproval of it” (Sandel pg 8). According to Sandel, the laws are made by the community and it is the community’s decision to judge on what actions are just or unjust. The advantage of having laws is that it gives the people structure in a community, but the disadvantage of having laws is that it could potentially ruin people’s freedom. In the Wine of Astonishment, the villagers in Bonasse were banned from practicing their own religion because of the laws of the Crown Colony system. The laws restricted the villagers of Bonasse’s freedom of religion, which furthermore means restricting people’s faith and their way of life. Bee’s wife, Eva Dorcas described the sermons that her husband presents when the law restricts Bee from practicing their religion’s traditional ways: “I would listen to Bee preach the sermon without no fire and I would join in the singing of the hymns that was every Sunday getting shorter” (Lovelace Pg 52). The bland…show more content…
When a person breaks the law in order to protest or receive justice from a mistreatment of the law it is called civil disobedience. However, breaking the law for someone’s own benefit is not an act of civil disobedience. An example would be a bank robber, and how the robber is breaking the law for the robber’s own benefit of obtaining large sums of money. The justification of breaking the law is by asking who is going to benefit from this
Open Document