What if the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had lived?

What if the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had lived?

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a long and well written article. It has both sides of the argument, even suggesting he would not have lived long anyway due to how over worked we was.

I thought this was a fascinating article, and i do believe that someone like Martin Luther King Jr. would still be an outspoken man against the evil that this world is cultivating.

No wonder this man had to die, for the good of the powers-that-be.

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Not to be a stick in the mud ... but what the heck.

If he had lived - he would not have achieved the status he has today.
He is a hero who died for a cause. This helped the cause.
If he had lived, then his less than virtuous side would have gotten
just as much air-time. For example - he was a serial adulterer.
This would have been as much a part of his legacy as his civil rights
work.

Much the same as 'The blue dress', the numerous affairs, and the
impeachment is as much a part of Bill Clintons legacy as is his
balanced budget.

If he had lived, his imperfections would have gotten a lot of attention from the press and from his detractors. It's hard to understand today just how controversial a figure he was; he was both intensely loved and intensely hated. But I can't help wishing he had lived into a ripe old age. IMO his potential was just beginning to be realized.

Which is not to ignore his..."close friendships" with Communist supporters, anarchic (in the "each man should interpret the law as he sees fit" views) interpretations of U.S. law, frequent condoning of violence by his own supporters...

But I digress - MLK Jr's death (as with the deaths of most public figures) has lent him a status akin to (if not being) martyrisation, in which any flaws in his character and actions have been negated by his (untimely) death. Not to be a cynic, but I believe he would've followed the path of such other "glorious" 'black activists' as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...

Here's another "interesting" link on MLK Jr's future plans for America:

King's visit to Augusta brought jubilation, danger



Outside the drastic ethnic cleansing required to form a "black-only" state in the contemporary U.S. ("we're sorry, but the only way we believe we can achieve social, political and economic parity is to drive you off the land that your ancestors settled - hope there's no bad feelings" :@@, it smacks of the de-facto "Limited Separation" rampant in the current United States - the black citizens would be able to choose whether they stayed in the "ordinary" states or could move to the new "black-only" one.

Bah, Bah.
He would have been killed in the press today...
Too many nasty woman enjoying the love juice of the good doctor.
Then again, nasty boys will be boys....at the time love juice mixed with multiple others than wife was not reported.
John Kennedy enjoyed blessing the fruit, also the King. Both leaving multiple stains.
Go figure.

Perhaps we could have avoided both Iraq Wars if he were still alive. I have no clue where we'd be if he had lived, possibly a better world, possibly not. I'm not so much interested in wondering what he could have done for us than what we ourselves can do with similar convictions towards peace for all men. at some point the message has to outlast the man, and that message has to have meaning in all men's hearts all across the world to get peace.

Mmm sounds sexy. It's always good to be reminded as to why you like a paticular person

[edit on 043030p://5u50 by Lucid Lunacy]

If Martin Luther King was alive today, he would probably be dead.

Old age dude. If he had survived that assassination, then he'd be what, like 80? Statistically speaking he would be due for a heart-attack.

There is only so much a heart can take when it's dedicated to fighting tyranny and social injustice.

- Martin Luther King Jr, Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p.H13007.

I believe Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter summed this situation up best:

- Justice Frankfurter, Congressional Record (April 18, 1968), p.E3062.

To make this clear, I will say this now - I am neither promoting or condoning the discriminatory laws and/or policies in effect before the Civil Rights Movement helped overturn them - however, imagine for a second the absolute chaos and disorder that would result if the interpretation of laws became subjective:

A pedophile believes that anti-pedophilia laws are "unjust" and breaks them by molesting a child - is he "right"?
A Muslim believes that laws preventing him from decapitating infidels are "unjust", and breaks them by executing an atheist - is he "right"?
A skinhead believes that hate-crime laws are "unjust", and breaks them by bombing a synagogue - is he "right"?

According to the "Good Reverend", as each of their consciences declared the laws in regards to their actions "unjust" they are technically in the right as far as he is concerned.

And I'd tackle the "Commie" part, but...

reply to post by Chaoticar

---

That quote of King's is simply beautiful to me. I too feel it is ones moral duty to disobey injust laws.

As for the other second qoute..



If one man can't be allowed to determine for himself what law is, then every man can't. That first means tyranny, then chaos

Sorry we don't see eye to eye



Heh. How do you think the laws came about to begin with?

I am sorry you undermine your own moral compass. I myself am a good person, with a good moral compass, and I frequently use it for good things. Such as interpreting the law



Just as he was free to decide, so shall we be free to decide on what to do with him

To answer all your questions: The People should decide. Majority rules. Let's hope the majority of The People are good, no? Why bother living in a world with others if you don't think this so?

There is a critical difference between The People deciding and The Law deciding. One is alive, the other is stagnant.



No. He is not saying they are "in the right". He is simply advocating the idea of freedom.

There are unjust laws. There are unjust actions done in the name of justice. This is why he says to proudly disobey them...because by doing so you are actually doing the moral thing, even if it "breaks the law".

If that persons conscience interpreted things badly, and in fact, did not do the moral thing. That's why King included in that part "willing to accept the consequences". And also, if you are right, and did the moral thing, but you also broke the law by doing so, "be willing to accept the consequences".



But you probably don't know much about "commie" as a politcal theory so it would probably be a one-sided conversation

[edit on 073030p://5u46 by Lucid Lunacy]