http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~wadhwani/afam01/1967.htm
Martin Luther King's opinion on the Vietnam War:
In 1967, the war in Vietnam received much attention from Martin Luther King who conveyed his feelings in a speech in April. His main points in the speech were condemning the United States government for spending all resources on the war and ignoring the worsening race problems. The civil rights movement was no longer at the forefront of politics. He also pointed out the irony that American black men were taken 8,000 miles away in order to fight for civil liberties for South-East Asians when they did not enjoy the same rights in America. He commented that although it was commonplace to see blacks and whites die together on t.v. in Vietnam, had they been in the States, the same boys would be segregated. Also, Martin Luther King spent his whole life during civil rights movement preaching non-violent action and Vietnam was a complete contradiction to his beliefs.
Well MLK said he dreamed of a day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character, so....maybe she wants your son to write that 'we shouldn't judge Muslims'? My opinion of that is that Islam is a religion - something someone chooses. A persons race is not a choice - it is God given. Maybe just reviewing that fact with your son will help him decide what his opinion is and what MLK would be thinking about this war....FWIW.
It is obvious tht your son's teacher is trying to force these students to conform to the liberal point of view. How old is your son? Is he willing to take some heat from the teacher if the answer isn't PC enough?
Poor kids. I wish you and him luck! Keeping my fingers crossed for you both.
Martin Luther King Jr. on Communism and the State:
This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself."
2. We should understand that these public schools are set up and run by our open enemies. The curriculum is set by our open enemies. The policies and procedures is set by our open enemies. Once this is understood then what kind of Muslim would send his/her child to be educated by the enemy of Allah and His Rasul (saaws)?
3. We must develop and maintain a zero tolerance for sending any Muslim child to play with the Fire that awaits him/her in the enemy's school system. If you have all of your children safely enrolled in the Muslim school then join on with others and sponsor need-based scholarships for other Muslim children to attend the Muslim school. We can ill-afford to sacrifice one Muslim child to the wolves.
4. We must put the conspiracy evidence before the youth in clear and concise terms and then ask them who are the distributors and producers of the music that they listen to? Who are the producers of the television and movie entertainment that they watch?. Who are the proponents of liberalism and secularism in the society ? Then we must be bold and courageous enough to tell them that these people are the Jews and their Christian co-conspirators.
See A "Moderate" American Muslim Parent's View, for the rest of the article.
Or for a more radical and widespread look at the folks the left defends with every pretense of "peace":
Muslim Brotherhood Movement Homepage:
Theme
Allah is our objective.
The messenger is our leader.
Quran is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
This is a question you should ask the teacher. I can speculate and justify the assignment in several ways. But only the person making the assignment can answer the question, if you can't.
Despite the BS opinions heard here about MLK, he was a hero in american history. He personally led a non-violent movement which caused changes in laws about how government treated citizens differently in routine practices. this was sorely needed and he did it in a good way, unlike those who opposed him with bombings and shootings.
What grade is your child in?
.
Published on Tuesday, October 30, 2001According to Section 803 of the act, it takes three things to make you a domestic terrorist. You have to break a law (federal or state). Your lawbreaking has to involve “acts dangerous to human life.” And it must “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce” a civilian population and / or the government.Martin Luther King: A Domestic Terrorist?
by Ira ChernusIf Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were alive today, he might well be leading acts of civil disobedience against the war in Afghanistan. And he would probably be charged with domestic terrorism, under the new anti-terrorism act. Anyone who has any links to his organization, or contributed money to it, could be charged too.
Suppose Dr. King and a bunch of others sat down in a highway in front of a truck carrying cluster bombs on their way to Afghanistan. This one should be an easy shot for a prosecutor who wants to charge him with terrorism. He definitely broke the law. “Acts dangerous to human life”? You betcha, the prosecutor tells the jury.
The crowd could easily get out of hand, spill into the oncoming lane, and cause a car to swerve dangerously. The truck carrying the bombs might get tipped over. An ambulance with a mortally ill person might not be able to get through. If one protestor forgot about the little penknife in her pocket, the prosecutor’s case would be made: armed with deadly weapons.
And surely the protest appears to be an effort to intimidate or coerce the government.
For the defense, I can hardly hope to find words as eloquent as Dr. King’s would have been. But I can guess the gist of it. Yes, we broke the law, King would admit. And we are prepared to take the punishment prescribed for blocking a public thoroughfare. But terrorism? No way. We are a disciplined, well-trained group of protestors. We took great care to make sure nothing that we did would harm anyone. If an ambulance came by, we’d move immediately. Otherwise, the only danger was from the police, who might not be as careful as we were. And that woman had no idea the little knife was in her pocket; no intent there.
But even if you find us dangerous to human life, you still have to prove that we were trying to intimidate or coerce the government. I follow the teachings of the great Gandhi, says King. The essence of nonviolence is that we never intend to intimidate or coerce anyone. We only show people their choices. The driver of the bomb truck did not have to stop, just because we were sitting in the road. We were prepared to suffer injury or even to die, though never to kill, in the service of peace.
The driver simply had to make a choice: Will I continue on in a path that is bound to bring injury to others, or will I turn around? We intended only to dramatize the choice that the driver, and the government that hired him, and the taxpayers who pay him, are making at every moment: either go on killing or turn aroundwhich is the literal meaning of the word “repentance.”
You, Mr. Prosecutor, say that it appears that we intended to coerce. Coercion is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the truck driver must give in to overwhelming force? Then you believe that physical power always prevails, that the stronger force always wins the day. That is precisely why you and people like you go off to war.
We refuse to make war because, we do not share your belief that physical power always prevails. We do not practice violence because we put our faith in a different kind of power -- not physical power over others, but the power of the moral conscience. We know that everyone, at every moment, is free to choose good or evil. No one can make that choice for anyone else. No one can control anyone’s choices, any more than we could control the truck driver’s choice. All we can do is follow our own conscience and then let others follow theirs.
Hogwash, says the prosecutor. You sat in the road to force the driver to stop, to prevent needed weapons from reaching our troops, who are fighting to defend our freedom on foreign shores. That certainly appears to have been your intention. And it is intimidation and coercion.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, having heard the evidence, what say you? Is the defendant, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., guilty or not guilty of the crime of domestic terrorism?
Ira Chernus is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder
E-mail: chernus@spot.colorado.edu
Maybe, just maybe, MLK would be stunned that so much of life in today's America is being judged precisely by the color of one's skin....and not the content one's character or the affects of one's choices.
Perhaps MLK would question why we are no longer a nation united by the tenets of: the freedom to become, individual responsibility and equality under the rule of law.
IMHO, living in America today, MKL would be confused and very dissappointed.