If one believes in a cause very strongly, then, when the time comes when one must stand for it or fold --for whatever reason, then taking the consequences, whatever their basis, is the natural course. It's how the status quo is changed. It's not frequent that one can effect major change without some personal cost.
I think if one is looks into these kinds of disruptions and one believes in them one has to not be naive and think that disruption will have little personal consequence. One can't have one's cake and eat it too, is more of less apt for this.
I'm not saying doing what he did is right or wrong --that's another debate. Belief in the righteousness of one's cause demands one put one's self aside, unselfishly and without self-promotion. One is only a vessel for the idea, at that point, rather than the raison d'estre.
I think if one is looks into these kinds of disruptions and one believes in them one has to not be naive and think that disruption will have little personal consequence. One can't have one's cake and eat it too, is more of less apt for this.
I'm not saying doing what he did is right or wrong --that's another debate. Belief in the righteousness of one's cause demands one put one's self aside, unselfishly and without self-promotion. One is only a vessel for the idea, at that point, rather than the raison d'estre.