I myself don’t care about his personal failings, and I take the communist revolutionary stuff as a given.
I think the correct meditation for conservatives on national MLK Day is, “Did that which he wanted and his followers wished for come true? Did the outcome match the promises/expectations?”
When conservatives, or the good Fr. Pope, write about how bad the 1950s were for the descendants of the African slaves brought to America against their will, enough time has gone by for us to ask, “Bad compared to what?”
Is life in East St. Louis, Camden, Gary, Detroit, and Birmingham better today FOR BLACKS (forget for a moment about whites) than it was in 1950? If yes, using what metrics? If no, why not?
MLK has been dead for 46 years, longer than he was alive. Surely, the facts about him that would have been relevant while he was living are no longer as important as the long-lasting changes he brought about in the lives of white and black Americans. We should be discussing those changes, the good and the bad, that they wrought.
They got their rights, and just LOOK at what has happened to black culture!
Then you must be consistent. You mustn't care about the "failings" of any leftwingers who smear our troops...John Kerry, for instance. You must be equally lenient with other sexual perverts, such as Bill Clinton. In other words, you have to "not care" about any of their radical stances.
King does not deserve special consideration.
"I think the correct meditation for conservatives on national MLK Day is, “Did that which he wanted and his followers wished for come true? Did the outcome match the promises/expectations?”
Firstly, do you "meditate" on MLK? Seriously? I hope you don't expect conservatives to follow your suit.
Secondly, the answer to your question is no.
We're always told by black people, "We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to go." I doubt we'll ever make it to that fabled point where things are done.
Also, the outcome desired by King was racial reparations, income redistribution, affirmative action...no different from what the rest of them want. In that respect, the answer is a more qualified no, since at least we don't have reparations yet.
"When conservatives, or the good Fr. Pope, write about how bad the 1950s were for the descendants of the African slaves brought to America against their will, enough time has gone by for us to ask, “Bad compared to what?”
Is life in East St. Louis, Camden, Gary, Detroit, and Birmingham better today FOR BLACKS (forget for a moment about whites) than it was in 1950? If yes, using what metrics? If no, why not?"
Are you serious? Surely you can't be.
The illegitimate birth rate for blacks is 70-72%. In 1965 it was 22-25%.
The unemployment rate for black teens is 40%. In 1965 it was 29%.
The black family, which at the time of the Civil Rights Act, was largely intact, has collapsed.
"MLK has been dead for 46 years, longer than he was alive. Surely, the facts about him that would have been relevant while he was living are no longer as important as the long-lasting changes he brought about in the lives of white and black Americans, We should be discussing those changes, the good and the bad, that they wrought."
You discuss what you want. I'm going to discuss the facts, which are as follows: MLK was an America-hating, Jesus-denying, woman-beating radical leftist.
Now if none of that matters to you, and if you prefer to keep the Kool-Aid neatly in your stomach and believe that he was some kind of magical pseudo-messiah, that is your issue, unfortunately.