The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Alexis de Tocqueville [Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clerel, le Comte de Tocqueville] (1805-1859), was a French historian who traveled America. He knew that human nature tends towards cowardice and that this timidity could be translated in to control by those willing to lead. He noted in his writing that America defied this normative pattern in European societies. America is filled with a people that had a will to be a moral people. Despotism begins when we allow the government to police us rather than self policing ourselves. The Founders believed that America was essentially a moral nation built on the principle of individuals that would self police themselves and on their own word would do the right thing.

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.*

John Adams, the second President of America, knew that the heart and soul of America would only last as the people of America were essentially moral on their own account. The good thing about the individual and private sector policing itself is that it does not allow for the wide spread abuse of power that the state can force on those under its control. The Founders of America agreed that the nation should not place the power to police itself in to the hands of the federal government. They purposefully created a weak federal government. When individuals fail to police themselves then each state has its own judicial system to address the problem at hand. Most companies and individuals when asked to take down copyrighted material do so. Perhaps, we should trust the good nature of our fellow man like President Adams to police ourselves instead of giving the government a virtual kill switch. There is a legal system in each state to handle intellectual and copyright laws for those who feel wronged or can not get satisfaction from their own personal dealings. Giving the federal government, that is being lobbied by multibillion dollar entertainment entities, that are desperately seeking more control is a dangerous idea. It is unnecessary. It is unAmerican. It will also eventually lead to the desolation of the American dream of a self policing virtual citizenry that the Founding Forefathers envisioned if passed.

Read more on SOPA from Gizmo.
Here’s how you can help end SOPA.

image creidts

*Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6. There are some differences in the version that appeared in The Works of John Adams (Boston, 1854), vol. 9, pp. 228-9, most notably the words “or gallantry” instead of “and licentiousness”. Courtesy of Wiki.

Image Credits

16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham’s economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants–for example, to remove the stores’ humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

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, so 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.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

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.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. 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. 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.

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?

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.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

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.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

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. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. 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 am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies–a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
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. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. 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 South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

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 nigger-lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America’s destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Published in:
King, Martin Luther Jr.

I live in NC and like in TX there has been here a great deal of hub-bub over the President’s address to public school kids. I want to add to that hub-bub.

First, the half of America particularly the Christians including myself that didn’t vote for Obama for President needs to get over the fact that just because they don’t like his policies and/or him doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t respect him in his office as President. Also, all those who are crying foul because there are people who don’t like Obama that don’t want their kids to listen to him they need to get over that too. There is nothing new in this. When the first George Bush (R) was president then Majority Whip Dick Gephart (D) opposed Bush addressing school children with the charge that it was merely partisanship indoctrination. The idea of not having children hear the President because he may say something that parents of differing ideologies do not like is the wrong reaction. The better reaction should be parents calmly sitting down and describing why their family doesn’t support whatever position that is raised with their objections. It allows for respect and dissent to co-exist.

Second, a valid option often not explored is to not to send your children to public schools particularly in their formative years. Home schooling is a valid option in this country and in my opinion may be better in many circumstances over the government ran schools. Why is it so hard to reason that the leader of the government ran schools would exercise his right to address students? I have a greater problem with the philosophy behind the science and history that children are taught as part of public education than I do with one speech of the President. Get your priorities straight on what is ultimately of your highest priority with your children’s education.

Third, opposition should not occur unless otherwise proved that the President is or will be advocating a morally questionable position in his address. Without proof then all that conjecture is nothing more than hearsay at best and is gossiping at worst. When we do nothing more than offer up conjecture of what he might do this is merely a more socially accepted form of gossip. A practice forbidden in the Scriptures. It should be forbidden by thoughtful people everywhere of whatever their moral persuasion.

Fourth, The Christian should asks what is their moral responsibility in light of the biblical precedents. To put that another way how does God want us to live practically within our culture? Wherever possible we should begin with Jesus and emulate his virtue. Thankfully Jesus addressed the issue of how to deal with the ruling government. Jesus said in response to a question of believers recognizing governmental authority that believers should “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” Jesus advocated acknowledging the authority, role, and rights of earthly leaders. In fact he alluded to the idea that all authority is ultimately granted from God.

Jesus did also note that we do not have to like or agree with that authority but respect them in their office nonetheless. Jesus after all is the one who called Herod the political king of Judea at the time “that fox.” He was not using fox as a term of endearment. When Jesus met Herod he stated that Herod’s power was granted by God for God’s purpose. He honored Herod even though Herod personally was a unhonorable person.

The apostle Paul echoed this idea and said “Give honor to whom honor is due.” Paul advocated giving respect to those in authority. The context of the verse definitely included corrupt governments. Paul admonished the early church to live at peace with all men. This includes governments and their presidents.

Finally, If we do not like a person or political parties ideas we should work to change them. For Christians they should do this through the outworking of their salvation. They should do it with fear and trembling because for many in this world they are the only Christ that many will ever see. Love will win in the end even when in the moment it may be hid for a bit in the overcast or hidden in the passing darkness. Christians should teach their children how to be loyal opposition when any political or social group suggest for us to do things that are against God’s will. Regardless we should respect those that God has put in authority. If not we may very well be fighting against providence.

It would be unrealistic not to mention the most historic nature of Obama’s election is that he is the first black president in US history. Congratulations to him and all his supporters.

Here is my prayer for the next president. May he run the country well for the next four years. May he strive daily to follow after God’s purpose for this nation. May he seek God to correct him where and when he errs. Amen.

Here is my prayer for those who didn’t vote for him especially conservative Christians. May those of us who often so readily express our Christian conservative convictions do the following. May we pray for him daily, support him where we can, and may we have the courage to fight for the soul of our country as we try to follow after what we believe is the best path for America. Amen.

Here is my final prayer and it is to God himself. May the path that has been chosen by my countrymen be used of God to lead many to the true path and way that leads to God and his glory and holiness. May God have mercy on us and during this next four years may the grace of God change this country to truly become a Nation of Christians. Amen.

May God bless America.

For full disclosure, I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, my wife voted for Huckabee. Neither of us where die-hard McCain supporters but we thought he would be slightly better than Obama. His senate record is a endorsement to conservative pragmatism and bipartisanship, be that a good thing or bad thing.

I really liked McCain in the 2000 primary. I even enthusiastically voted for him then. The McCain of 2008 seems to be inconsistent. He seems like part McCain 2000 mixed with whoever the Republican spin doctors were that tried to remake him into their mold. They wanted him always smiling and didn’t want him to get angry or appear to be too emotional. I hate spin. I voted for McCain in 2000 in the Republican primary and wished he had won. He didn’t. To be honest, I think Bush was a awful president on pretty much every single fiscal issue that his administration has touched. The GWB version of compassionate conservatism added to the fiscal mess America is now in. It was coupled with a version of a dead Republicanism that had died after the 1998 Clinton scandal. The RNC was obsessed with impeachment and forgot about reforming America, coupled with bad housing policy from the Democratic Carter era that got steam rolling under Clinton and again under Bush has led to our economy tanking. This has all been coupled with American greed for “the good life” which has led to the big mess our economy is now in.

Bush did do some good for the country but on a whole it was not a well run administration. In 2008 I voted for Ron Paul in the primary because I felt McCain wasn’t being himself. Huckabee didn’t impress me in that he didn’t seem to articulate what he would do as President, Thompson didn’t have the fire to fight, Romney just didn’t impress me until ironically his succession speech, and Giluini is pro-choice so I couldn’t support him on those grounds. Ron Paul for better or worse is always Ron Paul. I think McCain listened way to much to his campaign advisers. As a result his just didn’t seem genuine. The story of John McCain is very remarkable an admirable story. Ironically, in the last month of the campaign he has seemed more like the McCain of 2000. He started talking more about his views (excluding the pandering bailout package which he supposedly supports) and started to sound more like a old school Reagan style Republican. I liked that and decided to vote for him for that reason, as did my wife.

Oh, as for the pick of Sarah Palin as VP, I think Palin was a mixed bag for the ticket. Her first appearance was awesome it really helped rally the base of the RNC behind McCain. Her media appearances have been a mixed bag. My guess is she likely will be a fresh face for a new kind of Republicanism in America. Her pro-life stance is admirable. I think we will see her out there again if the McCain/Palin ticket doesn’t win this election. I think what hurt her most was listening to the same advisers that tried to change John McCain into someone he is not and told her not to speak to the press. It cut into her reformer maverick image. Listening to those advisers was a huge mistake and it may have cost them a election.

There is something so appealing about electing a black president that does embody a large part of the American dream. I grew up in the South and I have seen racism in my own family and also in the culture around me. It disgust me to see that it still exists in the 21st century. Obama is a articulate and well spoken man. He first seemed to be someone that could lead well. That would definitely help heal some of the wounds that run deep between the races, parties, and ever changing social landscape of America.

Yet in the end I could not vote for the man. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “I have a dream of a day when people will not be judged by the color of the skin but by the character of their heart.” I try my best to each day follow that God inspired advice. I try to discern to the best of my limited ability what a person’s true character is. With that in mind there are two major reasons I could not vote for Barak Obama based solely on his moral character.

First I don’t like his policy on human life. Simply put it is callous. The most important issue to me by far is the sanctity of human life. Obama is radically pro-choice (that choice by the way always is murder). His words on the subject are callous. Referring to his daughters in a hypothetical situation of being found pregnant he said: “I wouldn’t want my daughter punished with a kid.” That is beyond callous. As a Christian there is no way that I can vote for a guy who thinks children how ever they are conceived could ever be considered a punishment. I have a daughter and if she one day had a child outside of wedlock I wouldn’t consider her having the child as a “punishment.”

Second, the day before the general election I still have no idea who Barak Obama really is. What are his religious views? I’ve heard him say that he is a Christian but what does he mean by that? It seems from the church he was a member of for 20 years that he believes in black liberation theology which is nothing more than afrocentric quasi-religious Marxism. Why wasn’t that explained in the mainstream media. Are the guys at href="http://getreligon.com">getreligion.com the only ones that can talk about religion and how it shapes a candidates thought process? If that theology is his position then it is scary to think that a person that believes that Jesus was pro-Marxism mixed with latent black racism is ever okay. That certainly does not reflect the uniting ideas of true equality as found in the New Testament nor what this nation needs.

What is his understanding of fairness? I don’t understand how 40% of the 95% of people he is promising a tax refund can even qualify if they don’t pay property taxes. Those who don’t pay property taxes should not get a tax cut. There is nothing to cut. I don’t like it when politician or anyone plays the semantic game. It simply is welfare under the auspices of “fairness”. How is that fair? How does his religious views effect this?

What about the concept of equal sacrifice? I think the fair tax is far more biblical than wealth redistribution. By the way the fact that Rick Warren had Obama for a hour answering questions about his faith and policy and never asked these questions is seriously disturbing to me. Shame on you Rick for not helping clarify these issue for your fellow Christians like me who really wanted to know where this man stands apart from well crafted political rhetoric on the stump.

I think Barak Obama may win. Yet he will do so because the media as a whole dropped the ball and didn’t really seek to show who this man is. To be honest I don’t think any of us really know. He could be a really great guy or he could be the worst candidate to ever become president. The mainstream media simply didn’t challenge the man or his history. The media was and still is in love with the idea of a charismatic black man that could atone for all the sins that America has done to black people in America. By the way a nonwhite guy named Jesus did that about 2000 years ago on the cross. He was ethnically from one of the most oppressed people groups in world history.

I really want to know more about Obama’s relationship with the people in his life. What about Resco, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and what about leftist groups like Acorn? Why hasn’t the media helped clear this up? Where has he traveled to, how have those experiences shaped him, and what is his view of how to create a fair and just society.

Regardless of who wins I will be praying for them. If it is Barak Obama I hope some of his positions change and that the change he brings to America curries the favor and blessings of God. If it is McCain I will pray for the same thing. It is about all I can do for now.

Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate for president! Not Bar Bar the possibly Republican elephant!

Many Catholics should remember that their church teaches and recently affirmed their conviction that non-Catholics are not discerning when they do not join the Catholic church and join “erring brethren” and “schismatics”. Rude holds that the Catholic church and its followers are erring and he expressed this belief in that he wanted someone he considered more inline with what he believes is a man with good discernment. Let God be the judge and let us not judge this man’s actions. Perhaps we should worry about the logs in our eyes before bothering with the speck in our brothers. Yet as a fallible sinner perhaps I am missing something. Suppose Rude did indeed sin in some way offending Brownback. We who are professing Christians of any denomination/affiliation need to learn “to turn the other cheek” more often and to let “love cover a multitude of sins.” If Brownback was truly offended he should have done as our Lord taught us to go to the other person in private, then before the church, and if reconciliation is not possible then the wronged Christian should treat the person as one who needs to experience God’s grace anew to win the erring brother back. Instead of following Christ teaching too many believers are to quick to fill the blogsphere with another partisan attack that is splitting the body of Christ. How does this honor our Lord?

I generally do vote Republican but I hope my political values aren’t ever blindly aligned to any earthly party but instead are hopefully always aligned to the Kingdom of God. What bothers me about the results of the test, is that the author probably is assuming that certain secondary and tertiary issues are what defines a persons political views. I don’t get why people think that Christian values neatly fit into only one category or party. When you look at both parties they both have people and values that do line up well with Christian values. I think God wants us to be involved in politics (part of the whole subdue the earth theme in Genesis 1:26) but not obsessed with politics (Genesis 11:5-9). I choose to align with the Republicans because I consider them a bit closer on articulating a respect for life, balanced fiscal policies, and limited government. Although over the last few years those values are certainly not be articulated by the rising stars. I do not tow the party line or back candidates blindly. I agree with those who think our current President has made some horrible mistakes. I believe that the RNC is searching for its identity and it is most certainly not without flaws. Republicans generally put to much stock in the goodness of capitalism. Capitalism is a mixed bag, it does foster freedom but it also leads to greed and corruption. Many republicans wouldn’t agree with that idea. The Democrats aren’t without their faults as well. For as much as many of them talk about helping the poor and impoverished their current leadership surely is not leading by example. See this link about John Edward’s 400 dollar haircut. I pay 10 bucks for mine and I support a true local businessman. I feel too many democratic leaders are promising to bring heaven to Earth. Indeed we should make all of our nations more attuned to God’s standard for government (see Romans 13) but we should realize that no earthly government can bring paradise to the Earth.

Neither party is without faults nor am I sure either party truly get the values of those who vote for them especially Christians. Politics and God do mix but never nicely. There is always a tension especially for Christians. Christians should do their best to make sure those who they vote reflects God’s values. All of us who profess to be a follower of Christ should seriously ask does our preferred candidate appear and profess without apology a pro-Jesus message, do their values match that of God’s word, and are they striving to make their administration make this world a better place to live.