Does Martin Luther King Speak For You?

omega minimo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Feb-01-06 03:33 AM
Original message

Does Martin Luther King Speak For You?

Does MLK speak for you (still)? Yes-- the answer is yes.

It doesn’t matter if you remember, it doesn’t matter if you weren’t even born, it doesn’t matter if you agree. Those who speak truth, speak for all of us, for all time.

Those who speak truth to power, speak for all of us, for all time. Whether we like it or not; whether we appreciate it or not; whether we support them and thank them and join them-- or trail along behind throwing stones, petty comments, mean looks..........

And the message that they send is always the same:

This I do for you and for us all... and you can do it too. Join us in making this a better world.

Martin Luther King spoke truth to power and practiced what he preached-- peace, justice, non-violence. Coretta Scott King has joined him in the Spiritland, may she rest in peace. Thank you, Mrs. King, for your dedication to this nation and your sacrifice for the people.

(Photo: John Bazmore / AP)

Cindy Sheehan went to Texas and camped in a ditch. That first night, she said, 700 people showed up and all walked around grinning at each other, in wonder at it all. So simple and so powerful.

Cindy Sheehan went to the State of the Union and wore a T-shirt, representing the thousands of American service people killed in Iraq, including her son, Casey. So simple and so powerful (and legal). She was arrested.

Her presence might have been enough to send a message and cause a commotion-- maybe even enough to get her “escorted out” without the T-shirt. The person who takes a stand becomes a persona who stands for something.

These are human beings making simple human statements and taking direct actions, standing up to hypocrisy and lies with truth, courage and non-violence.

Each of us gets to decide which side we are on.

Martin Luther King's
Letter from Birmingham Jail

April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

<snip>

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

<>

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

<>

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat 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"

<snip>.

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.

<snip>

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html