What woudl Martin Luther King think of Edward Snowden?

[The2ndAmendment]

Read this passage from Martin Luther King, from the Birmingham Jail, and then reflect on how he would view Edward Snowden (Liberals beware, MLK is not like you at all, as much as you've deluded yourselves into thinking otherwise, much of his writings and speeches are Libertarian gospel, these writings by MLK may deeply shock and unnerve you):

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 well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first 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."


Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

...................................

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

................

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

.......

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

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.


.......

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

..........

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained.

......

And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps ... the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

Omg, MLK dropped the Nazi card? Yes, because those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Omg, does MLK promote the individual over the collective? Damn!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

 

[idb]

He'd think he was dreaming.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

May I see proof of that claim, link a document or writing, and single one-liners, quoted out of context don't count. I have many documents and references counter to your claim. Bear in mind that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine both dabbled in [pre]communist ideals are different points in time, does this make them Communist?

http://www.libertarianism.org/people/martin-luther-king-jr

Ron Paul:

"One of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks."

Martin Luther King's struggle against the government, against the war in Vietnam, which he spoke out to criticize passionately, his belief in non-aggression, which is an axiom of libertarian political theory, but his belief in the necessity of armed self defense, as well as his use of civil disobedience and peaceful resistance to tyranny.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/martin-luther-king-civil-right

Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.

Bear in mind that the Dred Scott case was ultimately decided on the Second Amendment, because to give Dred Scot citizenship would to confer him the right to keep and bear arms. That's exactly what it says in the SCOTUS decision.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/01/martin-luther-king-true-leader.html

I don't agree with all of Dr. Martin Luther King's views, but many of them I do agree with, and the great part of his struggle for human equality before the law and against the exploitation of the weak by the powerful- that struggle resounds in my heart.

By contrast, our sitting President is an impotent lackey for the corrupt establishment's continuing exploitation of the weak and poor. To those of you who think Mr. Obama is a great leader and speaker, I submit to you that this is a tired old bromide and I will lay it to rest with the following comparisons between Mr. Obama and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Also bear in mind that Libertarians are not homogenous in their thoughts, unlike Libtards, who agree on 80%+ of all things, whereas you're lucky to find two Libertarians that even agree on 50%; however, they nearly always AGREE to disagree; whereas a dissenting Libtard/Conservatard will be violently ejected from the group. Here's an article on the very subject in question, then read the comments:

http://thoughtsonliberty.com/why-li...p-calling-martin-luther-king-jr-a-libertarian

First:

I do not think that Martin Luther King Jr. was a libertarian, and there are many who disagree with me. He believed that while the government was systematically segregating and oppressing black Americans, the government would be the best solution to this problem. However, within the libertarian community, he is lauded as one of our heros, as a man of civil change and effective disobedience. Is that label fair if he himself did not view himself as a libertarian? We have done the same with Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft. What should we do with these figures who strove for equal opportunity, but may not have been libertarians themselves?

Followed by (in comments)

I dunno, dude. I think it's unfair for everyone to focus on these things that Dr. King did that aren't directly relevant to his rights work. George Washington was a dick. John F. Kennedy was a dick. Abraham Lincoln was a dick. Either we lambast them all, or we let them all have their places in history for the things they did right. We can't and shouldn't pick and choose.

Which is responded by another:

As for Dr. King's views on economics and politics it is well worth remembering the context in which he grew up and the situation he found when he began his public career. The USA at that time was not some long last idyllic era of free market bliss; some of the economy was already in a re-distributive mode it just was not called that. Massive amounts of tax money was going into the pockets of the corporations to supply materials for the Vietnam War. Dr. King was at least honest in what he said as contrasted with those who wanted socialized profits for the companies supplying the war but did not want to be honest about the nature of the activity. And in the context of government supplied road paving and schools is it any surprise that Dr. King speaks out saying why do the good roads and good schools tend to be in white neighborhoods? If the situation at the time was a sort of socialism to benefit whites then why is anyone surprised when Dr. King makes the same requests for blacks. And on the issue of reparations it should be pointed out historically it was not uncommon is some areas that young black men were arrested on trumped up charges and sentenced to work in chain gangs. And let us not forget that the draft was sending young black men to Vietnam. Clearly unjustly putting someone on a chain gang or drafting them to fight in Vietnam is stealing of their labor and in some cases their life. So Dr. King has a strong case advocating reparations for those and other misdeeds.

As you can see, when Libertarians disagree, which is quite often, they actually have thoughtful discussions and respect each other.

Also, as much as Ron Paul appreciates MLK, here's a distinct difference even betwixt them:

Yes-- when it came to foreign wars. They hold similar position.

No-- when it came to the role of the Federal govt. wrt. to the Civil rights Act. MLK supported Federal intervention. Ron Paul takes more after Barry Goldwater when it comes to Civil Rights act. They both do/did not believe in the Feds intrusion into State affairs when it came to the Civil Rights legislation. Ron Paul believes the act interferes with private folks choice on how they run their business. That is, if I run a business I have the right not to serve those NEGROES!!!!

The Civil Right issue is a major gulf btw the two individuals

However, I can assure you, that many of the sentiments expressed in the Letter (especially the ones I highlighted) to Birmingham Jail Letter, as deeply admired by practically all Libertarians.

---------------------------------
EDIT:
Come on boy, you made a wild claim, come back it up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Later tonight. I'm on my phone right now.

 

[Soulless65]

Dude the guy has nothing MLK was one of the most positive things that came out of this nation and if he was a communist so what being a communist doesn't mean that person should have less right than you. So Doctor I ask you this question if MLK was a communist does than mean all of his work for civil rights and not judging one skin but ones character is a bad thing?

 

[TemplarKormac]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

That's quite shocking coming from you, Doc. Can you prove he was a "communist...for all intents and purposes"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Dude the guy has nothing MLK was one of the most positive things that came out of this nation and if he was a communist so what being a communist doesn't mean that person should have less right than you. So Doctor I ask you this question if MLK was a communist does than mean all of his work for civil rights and not judging one skin but ones character is a bad thing?

I made no value judgements at all.

Any value of "bad" that you've associated with the word communism came from your imagination, not my post.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

That's quite shocking coming from you, Doc. Can you prove he was a "communist...for all intents and purposes"?

See above. I'm on my phone, and it's a pain in the ass to link.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay, he did knowingly surround himself with known Communists, but that still didn't change the fact that he was always critical of the Soviet Union, it also doesn't speak to the claim that he himself was a Communist. He is a libertarian for all intents and purposes.

What [MENTION=20452]theDoctorisIn[/MENTION]: did was give in to the overly liberal perspective on Martin Luther King Jr's stances on Communism. He opposed it:

First I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality“—”a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.

Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence, murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the “millennial” end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.

Third, I opposed communism’s political totalitarianism. In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an “interim” reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state i s the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end.

And if any man’s so-called rights or liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of 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 a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Chapter Six, entitled "My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence"; in his book Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story; September 1st, 1958

 

[TemplarKormac]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

That's quite shocking coming from you, Doc. Can you prove he was a "communist...for all intents and purposes"?

See above. I'm on my phone, and it's a pain in the ass to link.

Of course, do so at your own leisure.

 

[Billo_Really]

MLK Jr. was, for all intents and purposes, a communist.

Not a "libertarian".

No, he was not a communist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What woudl Martin Luther King think of Edward Snowden?

Snowden is no MLK, the comparison is ignorant idiocy.

Dr. King fought against laws and policies already determined to be illegal and un-Constitutional by the courts; where states and local jurisdictions were in open rebellion against the Constitution and Federal courts.

That in no way relates to Snowden’s alleged criminal acts, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What woudl Martin Luther King think of Edward Snowden?

Snowden is no MLK, the comparison is ignorant idiocy.

Dr. King fought against laws and policies already determined to be illegal and un-Constitutional by the courts; where states and local jurisdictions were in open rebellion against the Constitution and Federal courts.

That in no way relates to Snowden’s alleged criminal acts, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional.

Are you claiming that Martin Luther King would have supported segregation if the courts never deemed it un-Constitutional?

MLK thought for himself, he didnt' rely on an archonocracy of judges to think for him.

ny law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

He does not draw inspiration from the Supreme Court at all, and when finally mentions the SCOTUS at the end of this quote, he mentions it as an aside remark, not a justification of this thoughts; clearly, if he believed the SCOTUS to be morally wrong, he would not agree.

His ability to think and act independently of Government edicts if expressed twice in this very same letter:

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.

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."

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

In this quote (above) he doesn't even mention the SCOTUS at all, even as an aside remark, clearly he developed these thoughts entirely independent of the archonocracy.

Furthermore, he discredits both white and black nationalist groups (in that very same letter), which dispels any racist origins of his thoughts on segregation.

It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty ******-lovers."

Come on Libtards, give me one thought out answer with references. Your one-liner-ism is getting boring.

Everything you've said has not only been rebuked, but further proven to be the clear opposite of MLK's character. And they evidence that disproves your claim, and further proves them to be outrageously contrary to the actual truth, is found in the very same document (letter) that is being quoted.

COME AT ME BRO!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

...
That reply...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Doctor is still on the phone?

He got on his alt account (C-Clayton Jones), to derail again, and failed. lol

Double Fail? Is there a sound clip for that?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Come on Doc and Clayton, I'm waiting.

 

[deltex1]

Ed is gay...Martin didnt swing dat way....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So DoctorIsIn and Clayton still believe MLK to be a Communist?

 

[candycorn]

What woudl Martin Luther King think of Edward Snowden?

Snowden is no MLK, the comparison is ignorant idiocy.

Dr. King fought against laws and policies already determined to be illegal and un-Constitutional by the courts; where states and local jurisdictions were in open rebellion against the Constitution and Federal courts.

That in no way relates to Snowden’s alleged criminal acts, where the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional.

Snowden deserves to be kept in a very small cell for a very long time. I think Dr. King would think the same way. Plain and simple, Snowden is a traitor; anyone who thinks he is a hero doesn't know the definition of the word.