Dr. Martin Luther King Jr..

What kind of liberalism are you writing about, rsr? Martin Luther King was a theological liberal, a cultic theology of Christianity. If you, rsr, are writing about political liberalism, that is not the same animal. Theological liberalism is cultic because it denies the basic tenets of Christianity.

I could not say that the evidence for Washington's Christianity is more overwhelming than it is in the case of Columbus, who left a body of writings and public statement, or that of Lincoln, who lived more recently and also left a body of documents.

I myself came to this debate towards the end. I was not maintaining that one had to be a Christian in order to have a holiday named for him. I was merely claiming that the scandal around MLK will never go away because it is widespread and well-known. It probably was illegal to take money from communists; it certainly was illegal and immoral to have ladies of the night; and it is hypocrisy to call MLK a Christian when there is no evidence that he was anything other than a member of the cult of theological liberalism. He is not a proper object of admiration; had he survived he would have been marginalized. The holiday needs to be re-named. There is something wrong with such a holiday when the President of the USA is booed while putting flowers on the grave.

 

Perusing this thread, I don't think I have posted on it.

Let me say this - as private citizen one has the right to freedom of association and the freedom to discriminate as he pleases, whether someone else approves or not. Government never has the right to discriminate.

Therefore, the efforts of the civil rights movement to stop discrimination by government were absolutely correct.

Efforts to stop private discrimination must not use coercive government force, but must use non-violent persuasion, such as preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

"...The fact is that MLK, warts and all, is a powerful symbol of the advance of civil rights. He was a martyr to the cause, a voice of nonviolence in an era of violence. (Reminds me of John Bunyan in some ways.)..."

Wow, rsr, he was not a martyr to anything. He was murdered by a criminal murderer. How can you say that he is anything like John Bunyan? John Bunyan suffered for the Gospel of Jesus; MLK without many scrupples was a politician and head of a mass movement forty years ago.

 

church mouse guy
"There is plenty of evidence that Columbus was a devout Catholic"
Doesn't that make him an evil semi-pagan in your eyes?

"I was merely claiming that the scandal around MLK will never go away because it is widespread and well-known."
Not on this side of the pond. Overhere the legend still rules.

"It probably was illegal to take money from communists"
It wasn't.
It is however one of the great ironies of US history that it's worst enemy funded the downfall of one of it's greatest disgraces. Without the Commies it would still be seperate toilets time in a number of States.

"it is hypocrisy to call MLK a Christian when there is no evidence that he was anything other than a member of the cult of theological liberalism."
So you don't like his theology. Let's face it, MLK couldn't study at the sort of orthodox theological establishments that support your views, he was banned from attending those because he was a negro.

 

"Government never has the right to discriminate."
The first line of the constitution of the Netherlands.

CHURCHMOUSEGUY
"The holiday needs to be re-named."
Any candidates?

"<MLK> was not a martyr to anything. He was murdered by a criminal murderer."

 

Bunyan was talking about religious freedom and not the repeal of the poll tax in Texas. You can't compare apples and oranges. Bunyan did what he did for the sake of Christ. To say that King suffered for Christ when King did not even believe in Christ is a very false idea.

 

I really don't think there is enough collective emotional maturity on this board to discuss the pros and cons of the civil rights movement without someone resorting to namecalling and cries of "bigotry" or "racism" or "prejudice" or even "hate speech." You should have read some of the insults hurled at me in the past for being opposed to the US open borders.

So, Lady Eagle, can you (or Ken or Penn) not bring yourselves to admit that the following were good things (I addressed the question to Ken because I am aware of his viewpoint as he noted above, from other threads; for PA Jim, I must admit I don't know but assumed, perhaps wrongly--and my apologies, Jim, if so--that he believes similarly):

--the abolition of Jim Crow?

--doing away with "white" and "colored" restrooms and water fountains?

--the respect finally given to blacks such that they don't have to call their white neighbors "Sir" or "Ma'am", and can even address them by their first names?

--that a black family can travel in the South without having to pass by a motel that has rooms "for whites only"?

I won't even ask you to give your opinion regarding school desegregation. I agree with you that there are defensible, Constitutional grounds to oppose Brown v. Board of Education but I also believe that there are also sound Constitutional reasons for agreeing with its outcome, in particular the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is not an incorporation issue; on that I believe that Raoul Berger is probably correct.

For the record, I will agree with you that private clubs and organizations should be able to admit whomever they wish as members, however reprehesible I find the practice of excluding individuals due to skin color. On the other side, as an example, though, I am glad to see the PGA boycott segregated country clubs for tournaments.

 

Answering only for myself, I can state that, yes, those are good things.

 

--the abolition of Jim Crow?

--doing away with "white" and "colored" restrooms and water fountains?

--the respect finally given to blacks such that they don't have to call their white neighbors "Sir" or "Ma'am", and can even address them by their first names?

--that a black family can travel in the South without having to pass by a motel that has rooms "for whites only"?


Yes. Those are good things.

Except for the "Sir" or "Ma'am" part. I think ALL CHILDREN no matter what their skin color should address adults in that manner.

 

KUDOS!!!! A fine, concise, sensible observation.

 

Thank you both, very much. I proferred the question mostly due to Lady Eagle's admittedly facetious comment about being bigots and my remaining worries about her citing a vehemently racist website to back up the points made about MLK and the civil rights movement. I first of all offer my sincere apologies to both of you for my doubts about your positions on the questions posed, though I thought they were justified at the time, based on the above, directly in the case of LE, and by inference in Ken's case.

On the other side, I hope that, if any of you doubted, you understand that there are very serious doubts about MLK and others in the early civil rights movement. I think that the heritage of the civil rights movement is on balance a very good thing, having remembered segregated schools and water fountains/restrooms. My very devoted Christian football coach and Sunday School teacher once told of his father sitting in front of a store, I guess in the late 50's/early 60's when a black man addressed him by his first name and that his father beat the black man. The South has much to be proud of, but it also has very much of which to be ashamed. That said, there remain many blinded liberals who are quick to label conservatives who bring up the Communist ties of the civil rights movement as racists. The "Stormfronts", David DuKKKes, Aryan Nations and neo-Nazis out there make it hard for an honest look at this history.

 

Now I see what this comes down to. I think you've said plenty with that statement. Sad. </font>[/QUOTE]YES,it is very sad when one must refute a fellow by quoting out of context and smearing him with innuendo. I take it that you are implying that I am racist; therefore I am evil. Shame on you! You are not fighting fair but you are hitting below the belt. Why didn’t you quote my whole paragraph? It was short enough.

I posted: “Finally, where does Scripture condemn racism? Please give chapter and verse. God simply tells us to love our brethren without specifying or addressing the racial issue. Furthermore, we are forbidden hating our brother even of the same race. I cannot understand why it is a worse sin to hate a black man than a white man. Could you explain this to me?”

This clearly shows that I am NOT justifying or defending racism per se. I am simply pointing out that hating a black man or one of another race is not any worse than hating one of your own race. It is the hypocrisy of those who blanche at the mention of anything smelling of racism, yet they hate their own neighbor of the same race. Methinks it is all the same in God’s eyes—SIN. It is the hypocrisy of the PC anti-racist sentiment that I despise. God says that malice is murder. He didn’t mention race. Now, can you answer my original question instead of trying to smear me?

 

That was covered elsewhere. His "communist ties" are loose at best. Dr King clearly wan't a member of the communist party. This allegation has been made several times on this board, and it's blatantly false. The confusion over this arises ofer that fact that two of his advisors had previously been members of the communist party. And on one occaision, he accepted an invoitation to speak at a non-profit group that was discovered to have ties to the communist party. </font>[/QUOTE]Technically, you are right. However, he was Marxist, at best socialist, in philosophy. It matters little whether he was a card-toting communist or not. The result is the same—he was a bad influence in moving our nation toward socialism. A skunk by any other name still smells the same.

Yeah, and none of the above claimed to be Baptist preachers or men of God. BTW, can you document your claims against Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington from primary sources? Or, do you simply believe some of the PC revisionist historians who love to find muck about conservatives’ heroes? I did document my charge about MLK’s philandering (see The Walls Came Tumbling Down by Ralph Abernathy).

Again, you are begging the question. No one has demanded superman status for MLK. He was a self-aggrandizing two-bit politico who prostituted himself and his people for power and privilege. As a parallel, Adolph Hitler did much to improve Germany but we don’t celebrate his birthday. Am I better off because of MLK? No way! Now, I have to worry about everything I say to avoid the racist label since I am from Dixie. The PC nuts assume that I am racist because I am a Southerner. I think they are prejudiced which was a no-no when directed toward Negroes in the 1960’s. No, I and a few million other citizens are not better off because of MLK. BTW, I don’t think blacks are necessarily better off either because they have been relegated to minority status permanently. They have been deprived of their pride, honor, and heritage because everything is blamed on racism. Their ambition and drive for success is sapped. They have been made the underclass that we must pity, patronize and manipulate.

 

Apology accepted. But please take note that LadyEagle and I are not joined at the hip on this board. We have tangled quite often on eschatology.

 

...and probably always will until the rapture!

But we do it with respect for each other & no namecalling.

 

What about Jimmy Swaggert?