The strange association between the clan and black nationalism goes back even further than that to Marcus Garvey who among other things endorsed a plan by a US senator to “deport” black citizens to Africa(Garvey had grand plans of his own for a great migration back to Africa that never got off the ground).
http://archives-two.liberiaseabreeze.com/althea-romeo-mark3.html
It’s common for conservatives to use that line to suggest that King wouldn’t have supported affirmative action, but he clearly did support similar ideas.
Well, then, Mr. Muhammad was dumber than a retarded hammer. Just for starters, which Imperial Grand Kleegle Dragon was he going to negotiate with, who could speak with authority for thousands of mouth-breathing goobers?
But your wording…“his alliance”…implies or insinuates an actual agreement, a functioning framework. Which does for “unlikely” what Gibraltar does for rocks.
One of the reasons he split with Elijah Muhammed was over Muhammed’s impregnating a bunch of his followers. I believe that after he split with Muhammed he had a few affairs, but just because he was a hypocrite does not mean that the essential message Malcolm X proclaimed was about moral purity. From an interview right after leaving NOI “The Muslim Mosque Inc. will have as its religious base the religion of Islam which will be designed to propagate the moral reformation necessary to up the level of the so-called Negro community by eliminating the vices and other evils that destroy the moral fiber of the community—this is the religious base.”
Black seperatists like Malcolm X only wanted some land where they could be left alone. They did not want any handouts from the government which they considered white run and evil.
There are plenty of secular arguments for both but the religious arguments are the most prominent, if they contravene the first amendment then so did MLK’s argument against segregation. Obviously none of the positions contravene the first amendment, but yours is the kind of argument that illustrates my point.
Obviously the idea that the NOI or KKK would ever gain enough power to start giving away pieces of the US was delusional in the extreme. Yet they were planning for the day when that would happen.
Nonsense. Let me offer some arguments in favor of eating broccoli:
-It’s full of vitamins that your body needs.
-Fiber keeps your immune system healthful.
-Nutrition gained from broccoli causes less damage to the ecosystem than nutrition gained from beef.
-Evil fairies live in broccoli plants, and when we eat broccoli, we wage war against evil fairies.
My secular reasons for eating broccoli may be good or bad. My religious reasons for eating broccoli may be persuasive or nonpersuasive to other religious folks, but they are irrelevant to the broader discussion. If the only reasons I can offer for eating broccoli involve evil fairies, I haven’t presented a case for eating broccoli.
Similarly, MLK offered plenty of religious reasons for desegregation that may be persuasive or nonpersuasive to other folks of the same religion. However, he offered plenty of secular arguments in favor of nondiscrimination, and those were the arguments that deserved discussion in the sphere of lawmaking.
So, not government, but legislature. If ending segregation had no secular purpose then Congress would be contravening the Constitution by abolishing it. Of course, there was a compelling legal reason to end Segregation per the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the precedent set by Brown vs. Board of Education.
If you want to propose a secular reason for DOMA, do so here.
If you want to read about King’s affairs, you can do so here.
MLK started the Poor People’s Campaign for an “economic bill of rights” that included affordable housing and a guaranteed minimum income. That certainly doesn’t seem conservative to me.
The last (political) thing King ever did . . . And I’ve heard conspiracy theorists remark that with this transracial antipoverty movement-of-the-poor, as it was meant to be . . . that it was at that point that he finally became intolerable to the Establishment . . .
I should point out that Rev. King most certainly did not regard the founding documents of this country to be something to aspire to or to be restored, nor should he have, since the founding documents of this country explicitly endorsed slavery.
He certainly said we hadn’t lived up to the founding documents, but demanding that they be restored/aspired to is exactly what he did in the most famous speech ever given in the United States.
He probably wasn’t thinking of the third paragraph of the second section of article one when he was talking about “magnificent words”. The principles behind them are really enlightened and have a great theoretical backing, but they were too narrow in application from the inception of the Union.
As others have pointed out, King’s own words prove that wrong.
Additionally, by the logic you’re using, King should have hated the Bible, because it not only explicitly endorsed slavery and endorsed all sorts of punishments for disobedient slaves.
Obviously, King didn’t hate the Bible.
Of course he wasn’t. Nobody would claim he’d approve of the entire document–I was just objecting to the claim that he didn’t consider the documents something to aspire to. He clearly and explicitly did.
This is nonsense, I am not going to hijack the thread but if you want to know what establishment of religion really means a good place to start would be here
Here’s a much better primer for the first amendment.
This is quite a change from all the wingers trying to decry & dismiss MLK as a communist for the past few decades.