Of course, religion based ethics say no. But what about your own, non-religious ethics?
I can't speak for the GP, but my own non-religious ethics would definitely say no. Using disproportionate influence gained in a manner that is against the agreed-upon rules to do something that affects those who followed the rules and would not want that outcome is not just - when there is general agreement that the rules are appropriate, then breaking them is not the right thing to do, no matter what you believe will result. Unless the rules are clearly unjust, work within them for change.
Followers of Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) religions do what they feel is the good thing to do. Good and evil - morality - requires an absolute arbiter, which they have in their god. I do not believe in a universal arbiter, therefore I do not believe in good or evil. Instead, I see actions as right or wrong - justice as best we can see it with our imperfect understanding. We may not get it right every time, but in accepting that our notion of justice is imperfect we have the capacity to learn and improve.