Posted on 01/19/2015 6:47:52 PM PST by Enlightened1
Who's to say that among the American generals in WWII there wasn't at least one with the name Grant?
General Grant may have died by the time of the Second World War, but Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., son of Grant's friend from West Point days, won the last battle of the war, the battle of Okinawa. At least in the sense that he was in command--the troops involved in the battle actually won it.
He doesn’t deserve a holiday in his name. LBJ deserve a holiday in his name more than King ... and really, LBJ doesn’t deserve it either.
Those idiots in Ferguson - including an imported Minneapolis HR person from their school system by the name of Deray - invaded some kind of memorial at a black college today for MLK.
College called the cops on them.
What a bunch of losers.
No matter what one may think of Martin Luther King’s theology, or his politics, he had certain crucial things right. Credit where credit is due.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
“One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.”
Nice. I may have to steal this one.
How about King-Franklin-Lee-Jackson Day, to honor King (Jan. 15), Benjamin Franklin (Jan. 17), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19), and Stonewall Jackson (Jan. 21)?
Ah, the infamous (and notoriously incorrect) article rears its head again.
Covered and debunked extensively here in this thread (and I can give you plenty more going back many years for your perusal).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3242627/posts?page=23#23
Nope. His niece, Alveda, said he was not.
I would go for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson ... :-) ...
Martin Luther King? Well sure. He was that guy that got mad at the Catholic Church, right?
Ever get the sense of deja vu around here ?
I remember when Jimmy Carter ran in 1976 and won the support of Martin Luther King, Sr., AKA "Daddy King," some people dismissed that on the grounds that Daddy King was a Republican. Whether that was still true of him in 1976 I don't know.
“Space is one cold muthaf***a.”
Blackstronaut Martin L. King
Talking to yourself?
Your presence is humbly requested here. We need the truth squad.
The respondent at post #16.
Lyndon Johnson deserves to have a urinal named after him, As does Robert strange McNamara.
In space, no one can hear you rap.
Didn’t he lead the children of Israel out of bondage?
Maybe it was that other guy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.