He was a Christian therefore he is conservative?
Bollocks to that, he was anti establishment and that is not conservative in my book.
Here in North Carolina there’s an amendment on the ballot to outlaw SSM even more than they’re already outlawed here. Here’s what Rev. Dr. William Barber, chair of the NC NAACP, has to say about the amendment:
Even if many black Baptists privately oppose same-sex marriage, it’s a real stretch to suggest that King would, if still alive, take a stance against justice in this respect.
Many oppose it publicly. Notice that the NCAA makes it clear that they take no stance on the issue of gay marriage themselves in order to avoid alienating anyone. Ultimately, who can really know what King would have done had he lived? Maybe he’d take a similar stance that the NCAA takes. Maybe he would privately believe gay marriage is just but hold off on issuing his own opinion for fear of harming some other cause he was passionate about (as he did with his opposition to Vietnam).
Most likely he’d take the same stance as his close friend and current head of the SCLC(the group that King founded) Joseph Lowery who is very pro-gay rights and supports Civil Unions but is a bit more ambiguous when it comes to gay marriage or Jesse Jackson, who, I believe, holds the same views.
People keep forgetting that King may no longer be alive but many of his allies still are and logic would seem to indicate that he’d have beliefs similar to their beliefs.
Considering the tax rate and social services of her day, I guess it’s time for liberals to claim Margaret Thatcher as one of their own, too!
It’s hard to say what King’s position would be on gay rights if he was alive today. The gay rights movement barely existed in King’s lifetime. My guess would be that if King had lived he would have supported the gay rights movement when it emerged as he had supported other progressive movements during his life.
His son, MLK III, had harsh words for the gay rights movement, and is probably in a better position than you or I to guess what Dad would have thought of them. While it’s hard to impute anything less than saintly to the Reverend, the general tendency in the Black community is to be very conservative in regards to gay concerns. Remember, the Black Baptist church is guided less by the ministers than by the “Ladies in Big Hats” in regards to social policy.
It owes a hell of a lot to Bayard Rustin though. Check out Brother Outsider if you have a chance.
Anyway, if a man that uses the term “Brother Marx” is a conservative, then the conservative movement has a lot to learn in their choices of epithets.
But we’re not talking about Martin Luther King’s son, ordinary Baptist ministers, church ladies, or the Black community. We’re talking about Martin Luther King, Jr, a man who throughout his life was out in front of the crowd on social issues and not simply going along with whatever tradition said. That’s the reason he was a leader and all the others you mentioned were followers.
I guess its nice to know that in 50 years, gay marriage will be upheld by the right as a conservative idea.
MLK was a man of his time, not ours. I have little doubt that he would have been uncomfortable with the whole “gay rights” thing. At first. And he would have come around, because of his essential decency.
He frequently had weeks where he woke up in a different city every day, and every day he knew that at least five men in that city would love to be the guy who killed him. Five in a pretty small town, couple thousand in Houston or Birmingham.
And every day he got up and went and did it. Knowing that it was an odds-on bet that, sooner or later, what did happen was going to happen.
I can’t even comprehend courage like that. I am in awe of it.
King’s ultimate goal was to change the culture of the whole country. The way he did this was to call for the nation to live up to its founding documents and christian ideals. Changing the bus laws was just a small step in that direction. His goal of making neighbors of enemies was a great success. The Civil Rights movement caused great upheaval for a time but race relations are very good now and have been for most of the last 40 years.
Many conservatives have written about the conservative aspects of Malcom X’s message. About how he was about working hard, living pure, and not asking for a handout or waiting for government help.
Many subsequent critiques of america have grown out of critical race theory which holds that the founding fathers were all white supremacists who consciously crafted a society that benefits whites at the expense of blacks and all of their ideals were just covers to hide behind. In contrast to this King emphasized the ideals the founding fathers displayed and challenged America to live up to them.
Some liberals aren’t in opposition to religous faith but some are. On this very board you have people arguing that opposition to abortion and gay marriage are not valid because they are religously based. Other claim that seperation of church and state means that religous ideas and arguments should be kept out of politics. In his book Stride Toward Freedom King argued for laws based on Christian principles. He said that laws mandating discrimination were sinful and that by changing those laws the nation could not only free black people but make itself more righteous by helping white people repent of their sin. Explicitly religous arguments about public policy and sin are not something to be found amoung today’s liberls
Your argument makes the author’s point. You are seeing people in groups not as individuals and making judgements on people not on the content of their character but based on the membership in that group. You said that liberals seek external variables while conservatives seek internal variables. The color of one’s kin is an external variable whereas the content of one’s character is an interal one. If a man fathers a child and leaves the mother emphasizing external variables is saying “He is black and poor, what do you expect”. Emphasizing internal variables is saying “He is a deadbeat, who chose to leave”. It may be harsh, but it allows the person choice, agency, and humanity.
The Jim Crow south was not an aberration in history. Historically many societies found it okay to treat outsiders differently than insiders. The tribalistic view of humanity is as old as society itself. That view of morality is that it is not what is done that matters but who it is done to.
For example in the Old West cattle rustling was a serious offense if done in the US. However, most of the cattle that fed the mining boom town was stolen from Mexico. The authorities not only found nothing wrong with this they would fight off Mexican authorities if they tried to pursue the cattle rustlers. Likewise for some plains indian tribes stealing horses from other tribes was a way to prove bravery and be admired. The defense attorney’s final words to the jury in the Emmit Till murder was to remember they were white, christian, anglo-saxons.
In contrast to this King reminded everyone of the words of the declaration of independence that “All men are created equal”. One of the inscriptions on his memorial in DC is “If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.” That was why he was succesful, he got Americans to realize that discrimination was wrong and immoral.Yet today, whenever Affirmative Action is debated, liberals accuse opponents of being white boys whining about how tough they have it. Conservatives want to say that government discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Liberals want to know who is being discriminated against and who is being benefitted. Depending on which race is being discriminated against it could be a great evil or a great good.
King worked with communities to demand equal treatment under law. Barry O worked with communities to try to get a bigger hand out from city hall. When he went to Chicago he began working in a community with many issues and problems, when he left the community still had all the problems and a gazebo he got the city to pay for.
There were many things to like about Malcolm X such as his belief in gun rights, but they are overshadowed by his overt racism and alliance with the KKK, among other things.
Definitions change over time. The Democrat party used to stand for Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. The Republicans used to be the party of high tariffs and tight money.
He definitely seemed on the left on economics, but he was not an economist. He legacy is about Civil Rights and not judging people by the color of their skin but as individuals. Unfortunately, the liberals in this country have embraced the idea of treating racial groups differently, leaving the dream of a color blind society to conservatives.
Not all religions agree on this, I suspect the problem people have is it is based on specific religions. Just because you are religious doesn’t mean you can claim the mantle for all religions.
Let’s also not forget that King was in town to support striking AFSCME workers when he was assassinated. On March 29, 1968, King went to Memphis, Tennessee, in support of the black sanitary public works employees, represented by AFSCME Local 1733, who had been on strike since March 12 for higher wages and better treatment. Not quite a conservative hallmark.
His “alliance with the KKK”? WTF? “Cite?” doesn’t begin to cover it, more like “Where in the blue fuck did you get that crap?” There are a number of other stunning revelations in your post, but lets just start there.
Well, the NCAA is kind of a “let the universities pursue the policies that best fit the ideals of the administrators and alumni”-type organization. F’rinstance, they didn’t raise a fuss when BYU expelled a star basketball player for engaging in premarital sex.
Not sure what any of that might have to do with Dr. King, though. It hadn’t been my understanding that he was particularly interested in college sports.
MLK III is quite liberal and I think you’re overstating things a bit when you claim he’s had “harsh words for the gay rights movement.”
Yes, I remember about 20 years ago he made a dumb joke in a speech about gays for which he was deservedly criticized and apologized for but I don’t remember him doing anything remotely comparable since then.
Do you have a cite beyond just him not supporting gay marriage(if he doesn’t support it).
From a reviewof the Marable biography of Malcolm X "Elijah Muhammad reached out clandestinely to the Klan, with Malcolm serving as the point man. Muhammad hoped the Klan would support his solution: not just segregation but full separation—in furtherance of which the Nation sought the Klan’s help in purchasing substantial tracts of land in the South. "
You got me. For some reason I have a habit of putting NCAA when I mean NAACP! Nice catch!
Living pure? How many mistresses does one need in order to qualify as a sinner?
Not asking for a handout, or asking and not receiving any concessions from the Kennedy administration?
You’ve missed the nuance here. If there is no secular argument for either of these claims, then government support of them would contravene the first amendment to the United States (respecting establishment of religion). It just so happens that I do think there are secular arguments for opposing abortion - compelling enough to convince anti-theist Christopher Hitchens, for instance. A compelling secular reason to oppose gay marriage has yet to be posited.