Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a Good Man?

I was browsing the latest news and found this press release from a former Indiana congressman.

What is this guy's deal? Who is Don Boys and why would he write this now? Is this racially motivated or could it be politically motivated since Sen. Obama's campaign has been compared to Dr. King as well as the Kennedy's?

NewsReleaseWire

Martin Luther King’s statement that a person should be judged by his character not the color of his skin is a majestic thought. I will do that as I look at King, and I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will do the same?

Some “conservatives” need to do likewise!

Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?

He makes an interesting point and it is valid. Martin Luther King was a womaniser and an adulterer - libertine is a bit strong in my opinion, but does that diminish his overall character? Culturally, it is and was, acceptable for a man to have a mistress, especially a wealthy and/or powerful man. It is expected almost. Everyone has some skeletons, which is why we have the adage 'to err is human'. The problem in my mind is the media's inability to stay out of people's bedrooms.

I don't give a rats ass about anyone's sex life. As long as no one is being hurt or exploited it is not important or indeed relevant to a persons public life. In his public life King showed compassion, dedication, consistency and integrity - that is more than enough for me to render a positive judgement.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Most people already know about Dr. King's liason's and I agree it should not be something to base his legacy on.

I am just wondering why this man would put out a press release slamming Dr. King NOW, what is the purpose?

I know he discusses that there shouldn't be a holiday honoring King but is this the only reason behind this piece?

This popped up when I was searching Google news with the terms vote fraud so me being me tried to look at this from another angle, I could be off the deep end on this one but wanted to put it out and see if anyone else thought there might be an alterior motive.

Thanks for your well written response.

Check out this thread, particularly ConspiracyNut23's post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It could be something is about to come up and the waters are being muddied in advance.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Culturally, it is and was, acceptable for a man to have a mistress

I have a nagging suspicion that it may prove very hard to explain this concept to my wife.

Seriously, there is a degree of tolerance in the society in general towards this but nowhere near "acceptance", especially in the United States. That stuff can get you divorced in a millisecond... So I fail to see your point.

Now, a person in the position of moral authority, real, claimed or perceived, has an obligation to follow slightly higher standards of personal behavior than his flock. It is deplorable that some of the leaders chose otherwise.

ARRRRRGHHH..


No, this is it. - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tell me they aren't at all threatened by presidential candidate Ron Paul???? Come on, this is insane.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a good man?

That depends.

I would ask the author of the article, what exactly IS a good man? I assume since he is using King as an example then he is implying that in spite of his civil rights work he was a flawed human being that does not deserve recognition. That his cheating negates his contributions to the spirit of progressive equality so he should not be acknowledged for the work he did.

So what should King have been to have him fall under the subjective category of "goodness" so that he can be recognized as a great civil rights leader?

Someone that contributes something positive to society and lives a life devoid of any indiscretions, mistakes, or poor judgements since birth?

or

Someone who contributes something positive to society, yet has a somewhat flawed personal life of occasional indiscretions? Or continual ones...either way.


If the question is "Was Martin Luther King, Jr. Perfect" which seems to be what he is really asking, then the answer is not only a resounding no, but that you will find that most of our world heroes, leaders, and historical figures were not either. I feel though in spite of the things that these men and women have contributed to society as a whole, they are just as flawed as the next man. I have no illusions about this what-so-ever.

They are not Gods.

Some have a checkered past but should this past make their present positive actions valueless?
Who should judge this? Who is qualified to point the finger?

I have yet to meet a perfect human being, yet I am aware that even still we humans at times contribute positive examples in the hopes of progression. Don't know what the point of the article is, other than to say MLK, jr. was a human being like the rest of us.

Okay yeah, then I agree.

- Lee

Depends on what your defenition of "is" is...

MLK was one of the best examples of a rightous man to ever live.
I dont want to even think about what this country may be like today had he not been the man that he was.

Now, the question should be more along the lines of ...

Was MLK a great husband?

Uuuuummm...well heh...I suggest you do your research while the kids are not around and the wifes not in the room...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Culturally, it is and was, acceptable for a man to have a mistress

I have a nagging suspicion that it may prove very hard to explain this concept to my wife.

Seriously, there is a degree of tolerance in the society in general towards this but nowhere near "acceptance", especially in the United States. That stuff can get you divorced in a millisecond... So I fail to see your point.

Now, a person in the position of moral authority, real, claimed or perceived, has an obligation to follow slightly higher standards of personal behavior than his flock. It is deplorable that some of the leaders chose otherwise.

I agree with you, but my point is, is it important? He should as a Pastor be answerable to his parish, but as a Political and humanist leader it is IMO irrelevent. And it is certainly irrelevent so many years after his death. Does it change that he was murdered, is it the reason he was murdered? JFK was pretty liberal about the places he dipped his wick - to the US people did that negate the effects of his assassination? No, the people love them more because they are human.

MLK gave way to temptation, that is, to my mind between him and his wife. Don't care, don't want to know.

I think though what JackatMtn was trying to point out is that we all know this. Documentaries and books have been written dissecting MLKs life and transgressions - more so than those that document 'his dream'. So why this renewed attack? Why is this news?

The clip that is in the thread that I linked to, posted by ConspiracyNut23, may offer some insight in my opinion. It is possible in my mind that the family and supporters of MLK may be preparing for a renewed campaign - in which case we can only watch the space. I can think of no other reason for rehashing such old tired news than an attempt to deflect attention from something else.

Do I really care about MLK's love life?

No, I do not.

That's a matter for his family to have opinions on, not me, and his family don't seem to resent him for it, so neither do I. It's no secret that lots of men are not very monogamous, and lots of women are willing to tolerate it to an extent.

What matters about MLK is what he did for this country.

And what he did was take a leading role in accomplishing massive social change without massive violence. That alone is a stunning historical achievement.




[edit on 1/11/08 by xmotex]

Yes he was a good man and was killed because of it.
Just listen to him speak and the ideas he had, then consider the time he lived in when he said these things. A very brave man good man is probably an understatement.


He was legend

Now how about we scrutinize the real criminals in history instead of tearing down one of the only ones we have ever had.

Love life aside, there are some disturbing elements to King's life that have been covered up by the US government for years.
A damning tape of King's comments recorded by the FBI while watching the funeral of JFK has been suppressed but alluded to in several histories of Hoover and Sullivan.
"That's the last time she'll go down on him" King remarked as Jackie knelt at the coffin to the laughs of associates has been reported.

Have there been great men, even great good men, that committed errors? Indubitably. What would you expect from anyone who errs, from anyone who hurts you? The least is an apology. Acknowledgment of the error and promise of change.

But MLK cheated on his wife the night before he was murdered. Perhaps he would have apologized for that to Coretta and the murderers didn't leave him enough time to do it. Yet, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he regretted the pain he undoubtedly was causing his wife. And do not come and tell me that she could not feel the pain if she didn't know about it. That's plain stupid. As stupid as saying that it's OK to poison somebody as long as they remain unaware and therefore unable to "feel" that they are being poisoned. Sooner or later, they'll know. And even if they never know, it still is an injustice.

I do not buy the argument about the privacy. Marriage is not something private. You make very public vows when you marry. And in the case of religious people like MLK, you make the most solemn promises of love and fidelity before God and society. What value does the word of a man that breaks the most important promise of his life have? Yes, maybe it's true that many people do. Is that a reason enough? That anybody, even the greatest man, can have a slip? Granted. The question is, can MLK's womanizing be considered a "slip"?

Of course, the realization of a serious flaw in his life does not discredit all the good that his life contributed to society. But please do not say that he was a compassionate man. Ask any woman who is repeatedly betrayed by her husband if she thinks him "compassionate". And go tell any mother that Martin Luther King is a role model that her children should follow. And this, to me, seems the message behind a MLK's holiday, and the iconization of his figure in our public schools. Is like telling our children: "your word does not matter very much. Break all the promises you feel like as long as you contribute to something good in society".

The greater the man, the greater the flaw. It's not that King's flaws were any worse than a lot of other people. But the greatness of King acts as magnifying glass, making his flaws seem bigger than they really are.

I don't know.

But after all I have read about him I have the feeling his intentions were good.

Coretta King apparently forgave her husband for philandering so I don't see why we cant too.

Didn't some wise guy once say we should be worrying about the plank of wood in our own eyes, not the speck of dust in another's?

Besides, are the people criticising Martin Luther King so certain that complete perfection is possible for any man?

If they are not, does that mean they respect no-one and will learn from no-one?
Or does that mean they will look past a person's faults to learn from what is good?

He was a good man, in as much as any man is good. He did great work for both blacks and whites, in trying, and sometimes succeeding, to bring us closer together.

I don't agree that his marital indiscretions were between him and his wife, primarily because as a husband he had an obligation to be faithful to her and as a pastor he has an obligation to be free from sexual immorality as defined by the Bible.

I do understand that non-Christians don't care about what the Bible says, so I'll agree that as a humanist leader he was a good man. That being said, as a Christian leader he was more mediocre because of his moral failings.

That does not take away from his work in any way. He was one of the greatest Americans of all time and probably one of the most important world figures post-WWII.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


I have a nagging suspicion that it may prove very hard to explain this concept to my wife.

Seriously, there is a degree of tolerance in the society in general towards this but nowhere near "acceptance", especially in the United States. That stuff can get you divorced in a millisecond... So I fail to see your point.

Now, a person in the position of moral authority, real, claimed or perceived, has an obligation to follow slightly higher standards of personal behavior than his flock. It is deplorable that some of the leaders chose otherwise.

exactly, in his position, as Christian minister it indicates a lot about the man surely