Martin Luther King Jr. Day

[CKFresh]

Let's try to keep this non-political.

King was a great man with a great legacy.

What are your thoughts of him on this day?

A clip, from his last speech, the day before he was assassinated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FiCxZKuv8

[The Running Man]

He was an adulterer and plagiarist, I don't understand all of this nonsense about him being a "great man". If any other supposed Rev. repeatedly cheats on his wife, they are a disgrace to their faith...

[CKFresh]

Originally Posted by The Running Man

He was an adulterer and plagiarist, I don't understand all of this nonsense about him being a "great man". If any other supposed Rev. repeatedly cheats on his wife, they are a disgrace to their faith...

Jesus Christ...



Forget the impact he had on the Civil Rights movement, he had personal problems with his wife...

Why is that any of your business who he slept with?

[The Running Man]

As a spiritual leader who represents a denomination telling others that adultery is a sin, how can you not question him? I won't even go into the reports that he had used prostitutes.

And what about cheating his way through school? What a great role model for his followers... "Ok kids, cheat your way through school and live an immoral life.. you could end up as incredible as me!"

He did do great things, but why is he the only civil rights leader with a day? It should be civil rights day rather than MLK day..

[CKFresh]

Well, I guess I'm one who values one's contributions to the public over the personal problems.

In terms of him having his own day, perhaps you're right that it should be a Civil Rights Day rather than just his day, but I think many would argue that he deserves special consideration, above and beyond that of other Civil Rights Leaders

[Marc]

I think racism is not a major problem for younger generations. Most of his "dream" has been realized, look no further than Obama. But King was a great man who was the face of an important movement in civil rights history.

[Richard the Lionheart]

That's an awesome speech, CK, thanks for posting.

King was a great man and a good man as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to me that you would have to consider him just "a common man" because of his silly spiritual beliefs. Care to comment? It also seems that from the Declaration of Independence to the 2nd Innaugural to the I Have a Dream Speech, the religious idea of equal human dignity and rights before God was one of the primary fuels of the Civil Rights movement. But hey, whatever.

[CKFresh]

Originally Posted by Marc

I think racism is not a major problem for younger generations. Most of his "dream" has been realized, look no further than Obama. But King was a great man who was the face of an important movement in civil rights history.

I don't think his dream has been quite realized. Until we see total economic integration, a fair judicial system, and adequate education for all members of society - we haven't acheived the "dream."

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

That's an awesome speech, CK, thanks for posting.

King was a great man and a good man as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to me that you would have to consider him just "a common man" because of his silly spiritual beliefs. Care to comment? It also seems that from the Declaration of Independence to the 2nd Innaugural to the I Have a Dream Speech, the religious idea of equal human dignity and rights before God was one of the primary fuels of the Civil Rights movement. But hey, whatever.

I would consider King to be a "common man" in many ways, and an extraordinary many in many others.

As for his "silly spiritual beliefs," I have said it before - I have seen much of the good religion can do. I recognize the contributions it has in some people's lives.

I would simply argue the same point which Christopher Hitchens argues much more articulately than I do... To paraphrase - religion isn't a necessary ingredient for any good deed, while it is a necessary ingredient for some terrible acts. In other words, there is nothing that King did that he couldn't have done as an atheist, however, religion is a integral aspect to things such as suicide bombing.

Again, I can't articulate it as well as others can, but I think you get the point.

You might argue that Christianity (or faith, or spirituality) was the driving force for King and many others in the Civil Rights movement. I don't disagree. My point would be that logic, hope, and a sense of justice were the real driving forces - forces that are normal instincts in many great people - and King use his religion to draw strength and find purpose.

Religion can be a good thing. I've said it a million times.

[buckeyefan78]

1968 - 12.8% live in poverty
2008 - 12.8% live in poverty

Same ole, same ole.

[CKFresh]

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78

1968 - 12.8% live in poverty
2008 - 12.8% live in poverty

Same ole, same ole.

Has the definition of "poverty" changed at all?

In other words, do you think the 12.8% in poverty these days are in the same financial situation as the 12.8% in '68?

As an example, I know people who fit the definition of "poverty" who also own flat screen plasma TVs.

[catman]

Then things are better, aren't they?
To get back to the topic at hand, Martin Luther King was one that wanted to see equality of everyone, regardless of race, creed, national origin, gender or any other defining characteristic. He wanted to see everyone work for a living, starting minority businesses. He would not likely approve of the direction the civil rights movement has taken, currently seeming to want favor for certain groups at the expense of others.
I also want to see equality of all people, period. Lets work toward that goal.

[buckeyefan78]

Originally Posted by CKFresh

Has the definition of "poverty" changed at all?

In other words, do you think the 12.8% in poverty these days are in the same financial situation as the 12.8% in '68?

As an example, I know people who fit the definition of "poverty" who also own flat screen plasma TVs.

I'll get back to the first question later tonite but as for your second sentence...I find it interesting coming from you.

After all, when I told you that as a first-year teacher I technically qualified for food stamps/govt assitance therefore we shouldn't overreact to Obama's "food stamp childhood" you pretty much dismissed my comparison.

In any event, since the inception of the poverty index in the early 1960s the system hasn't been tweaked to a large extent. It has criticisms and has surely been manipulated by the folks we saw on the Big Stage yesterday to inflate/deflate their power plays but other than that...I'm fine with it.

[CKFresh]

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78

After all, when I told you that as a first-year teacher I technically qualified for food stamps/govt assitance therefore we shouldn't overreact to Obama's "food stamp childhood" you pretty much dismissed my comparison.

I dismissed the comparison because it does nothing to diminish the point I was making - the point being that Obama came from a more modest beginning than most presidents. I never made the claim that he came from absolute poverty. I made the claim that he wasn't your typical country-club-since-birth politician.

In any event, since the inception of the poverty index in the early 1960s the system hasn't been tweaked to a large extent. It has criticisms and has surely been manipulated by the folks we saw on the Big Stage yesterday to inflate/deflate their power plays but other than that...I'm fine with it.

That may be so, but I would argue that the conditions of many in poverty today (at least in the US) are better than the conditions of that same 12% in 1968.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Originally Posted by CKFresh

I would consider King to be a "common man" in many ways, and an extraordinary many in many others.

As for his "silly spiritual beliefs," I have said it before - I have seen much of the good religion can do. I recognize the contributions it has in some people's lives.

I would simply argue the same point which Christopher Hitchens argues much more articulately than I do... To paraphrase - religion isn't a necessary ingredient for any good deed, while it is a necessary ingredient for some terrible acts. In other words, there is nothing that King did that he couldn't have done as an atheist, however, religion is a integral aspect to things such as suicide bombing.

Again, I can't articulate it as well as others can, but I think you get the point.

You might argue that Christianity (or faith, or spirituality) was the driving force for King and many others in the Civil Rights movement. I don't disagree. My point would be that logic, hope, and a sense of justice were the real driving forces - forces that are normal instincts in many great people - and King use his religion to draw strength and find purpose.

Religion can be a good thing. I've said it a million times.

This is a good response, and I agree with your main point here, but it's a question of what most people are capable of. I think it is fairly reasonable to be skeptical of the cliam that most people are capable of attaining a purely rational logic, hope and sense of justice. Whatever the real driving forces are behind religion, religion at the very least makes those driving forces more accessable to people not capable of the kind of purely rational logic you are speaking of. In attacking the Church you only take away common man's capability to live according to the principles you support. The attack may be done in the name of truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will have positive consequences for the world.

[buckeyefan78]

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

Whatever the real driving forces are behind religion, religion at the very least makes those driving forces more accessable to people not capable of the kind of purely rational logic you are speaking of..

Uh, yeah. Did you come up with the idea of Indulgences?

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

In attacking the Church you only take away common man's capability to live according to the principles you support. The attack may be done in the name of truth, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will have positive consequences for the world.

The "common man" would do just fine with the highest standards of his day in terms of food, water, medicine, education (formal and life) and housing.

If religious institutions didn't inhibit the masses of attaining those entities...I'd be right there with ya.

:thumbup: