Dr. Martin Luther King Jr..

No, Malcom X was a separatist. He spoke about racial separation. He also spoke about using violent means, if neccesary. While he did, in the short time before his death, change his tune in favor of peace and racial harmony, it was, unfortunately, too little too late, imo. MLK, otoh, worked to achieve a colorblind society, and worked not just for the black man, but for all men and women. And he did so using nonviolent civil disobedience as one of his tools. His way was not through violence.

 

Not a communist? Well, maybe he wasn't a registered communist.

Source

 

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]

HOGWASH! This argument doesn't hold water. All men are sinners but all men don't wallow and live in sin. MLK did. Research the facts. He was a reprobate. Read 1 John 5. His whole lifestyle was wicked, hypocritical, and dissipated notwithstanding his pious words. I must admit one thing. He was a great orator and could move people with his words. Wow!

Wrong! I question King’s actual contribution to civil rights, etc. He exacerbated the race problem with his agitation and so-called non-violent philosophy. Although ostensibly non-violent, King’s ideas and presence were disruptive and perceived as threatening to an otherwise stable, progressive society. King’s political activism actually caused a regression in black civil rights due to stirring up reactionary elements (i.e. KKK, etc.). His political assertiveness brought disruptive elements into Southern communities and Southern society.

Civil rights had progressed a great deal under the middle class blacks who, at first, rejected King and his methods. Later, they were burgeoned into subjection by the more radical elements of black society (read G.K. Chestnut’s Black in Selma). Civil rights was an issue whose time was ripe and would have happened with or without King. One can cogently argue that King actually retarded black civil rights by the opposition he stirred up with his news-hungry, high-profile methods. Again, middle class blacks were gaining ground that King built his empire upon. BTW, King was not the martyr; he benefited greatly from what he did. He was a power-hungry, lustful, self-serving demogogue.

Another problem is that King’s non-violent approach was more Gandhi than God, yet he purported to be a Baptist preacher despite his sin and pagan, humanistic ideas. This non-violent approach later evolved into the more radical and violent elements of Rap Brown, Eldridge Cleaver, Stokely Carmichael, and others. I find nothing commendable here.

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?

There’s a book’s worth of material here but time and space forbids. Nuff said. You are worshiping the MLK myth, not the man who was a scoundrel, a reprobate, a liar, and an adulterer.

 

Now I see what this comes down to. I think you've said plenty with that statement. Sad.

 

Exactly. Yet Johnv called me a "liar" about MLK in the other thread. How disgusting. Where are the moderators?

Next I suppose we are going to hear from Johnv how great Kwaanza is - another "holiday" based upon lies and reprobates. Or how wonderful the Black Panthers were/are?

Anything that is anti-American seems to be A-OK with you as long as it is cloaked in "race."

I find it very offensive you would even dare to compare MLK with any of the Founding Fathers of this country in which you live - by choice, not birth.

[ January 30, 2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

It is extremely sad that people here are trampling upon the actions of Dr. King. I would only imagine that if those here were black and lived in the 1960's they would be speaking a completely different tune. The fact is that because of men like Dr. King and Fred Shuttlesworth (who doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves) blacks can go to school where they want, drink from whatever water fountain they want, marry who they want, and do not have to be fearful of their lives because of the racism of the white people.

Dr. King led the black community to freedom just as our Washington, Adams, et al. helped the patriots to freedom over the English. It is sad to know that the white community believed in segregation, when we know that in Christ there is no black or white, there is no free or slave, there is no male or female. You want a verse against racism, there you go.

Methinks that many here need to search for what Christ would have done had he lived in Birmingham in the 1960's. I have absolutely no doubt that he would have ministered to the black community, just as he reached out to women, the Samaritans, the publicans, and the lepers, four groups who were also marginalized and spat upon by the majority.

No matter what his theology, I am thankful to God that a man like Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders stood up and helped to bring freedom to ALL people in America.

 

So, Scott, Daisy, JohnV - you don't think we should follow King's dream and judge him by the content of his character?

 

Oops, double post. After only being a member for four years, I'm just so excited about reaching that 200 post mark that I couldn't help myself.

 

[snipped] MLK was not a communist. If you had said that he associated with communists, you would not be lying. But since you made a statement that was not true, and, upon correction, repeated the info.

Sounds like if a guy is liberal and black, he must be evil.

Oh, forgive me for not bowing down and worshipping our founding fathers, many of whom were adulterers. Am I the only one who can recognize that Washington, Jefferson, and Columbus couldn't keep their pants zipped, but should be recognized for their contributions? Or should I join the blind multitudes to bow down and worship these men?

[ January 30, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Yes. IMO, by the content of his character, I have no problem with the fact that this country has recognized him for his contributions. The man was no saint. Anyone who takes an objective look at any of the people with a current national holiday will recognize that none of them were saints (despite the natural inclination of people to want to deify these men). But MLK's contributions to the civil rights movement of all people (not just those who are black) are commentable and irrefutable.

 

Not just that, but thanks to these men, white folks like me can go to school with blacks, drink from the same fountain as blacks, or marry a black woman, without having to be fear or retribution.

 

Dr. Bob,

You said, "Daisy - I proposed that there is no Bible-base for prohibiting slavery. Big difference. It was actually a good debate."

Well, how about, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

No, just the liberal part.

You're right. I and everyone else who refutes your great wisdom in all areas, even with historical facts are all liars. Even the newspaper I posted above and the links. We are all liars. Especially me because I believe the lies and pass them on as if they are truth, as if I might have lived during that time (in this country) and remember. I must be a liar because I do not believe in your version revisionist history.

But not only are those of us who remember and can post credible links and headlines - not only are we liars - we are bigots, too! And proud of it! Not an ounce of shame.

And those are our good points!

BTW, thank you for reminding me of my wonderful American heritage - you can smear the founding fathers all you want to - it's become quite the thing to do from those who want to destroy our nation. So you have a lot of company.

 

There's a difference: You are anti-MLK, and went on a dirt-digging find. I, OTOH, am indifferent on the man, and went to do research. If the man were really a communist, I'd be the first person to jump up and say so. But he wasn't. The most you can say was that two people that he associated with were members of the communist party, and that he had been invited to speak at a number of events whose organizers had communist party ties. To say the man was a communist is to propogate a falsehood.

The link you provided is an anti-King site. You know very well that sites like these are nothing more than commentery blogs. I never, NEVER use those sites for reliable info, be they pro- or anti-. The net is full of similar ones denouncing Christian preachers, often falsely, or, in the very least, with facts grossly out of context or misrepresented.

The "newspaper" photo isn't even such... it appears to be an advertizement flyer. I'd love to see the print, but it's too small.

FIrst, I admit that my calling you a liar was a bit extreme, and I ask that you accept my apology for such. For you to be a liar, you ust know that what you're saying is false. But since you believe your stance to be true, in the worst case, you're mistaken. Now, as far as the sarcasm in your post, you're trying to assert that I don't know the "real" picture because I wasn't in the country at the time. That scenario doesn't fly, anymore than the times you've disagreed with me in regards to Christian persecution in Indonesia.

As I stated, you link is hardly credible. In fact, the name of the site uses MLK's name illegally in their URL. Now as far as your bigotry, my stance on the MLK holiday issue has never been based on race, and, for a while, I noticed that you hadn't mentioned the race issue (though others did). Then, you made an off the cuff comment about Kwaanza, as though that has anything to do with the MLK holiday issue. Likewise, you call MLK an adulterer, but have completely ignored the issue of adultery with people like Columbus and Washington.

How have I smeared the founding fathers? (Columbus wasn't a fouding father, btw) By pointing out their adultery? Turning a blind eye to their shortcomings is not a requirement for recognizing their achievements.

Part of what's destroying our nation is turning folks like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Lee, Jackson, Davis, or, more recently, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Wallace, Kennedy, and, yes, even King, into objects of worship that too many people are willing to bow down to.

 

I humbly, and publicly, thank you for respectfully calling me on the situation.

 

For those keeping score at home.
The site LadyEagle linked to to provide evidence for her position also has David Duke on it. I won't say it's a racist site, I will say it is a Anti-Semitic site.

 

There is a commentary by David Duke, but there is also info from Newsweek, and a number of other sources.

From the webmaster on the site:

Just for the record...

 

Ken, Lady Eagle,

Do you deny that there were beneficial results from the civil rights movement?