It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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


edition.cnn.com

(AP) -- The preacher in him would have continued speaking out against injustice, war and maybe even pop culture. He would likely not have run for president. He probably would have endured more harassment from J. Edgar Hoover.

Four decades after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. fell to an assassin's bullet, colleagues and biographers offer many answers to the question: What if he had lived?
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
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)



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.


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


But after 40 years of secrecy, and initially saying he (John Watkins) would probably take it to his grave, he revealed what it was: Dr. King was going to propose a separate state for blacks so they could eventually achieve economic parity that he believed wouldn’t happen on its own in America.


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.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chaoticar
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


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]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Mmm sounds sexy. It's always good to be reminded as to why you like a paticular person







“I think that the distinction here is that when one breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly. He must do it cheerfully. He must do it lovingly. And he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
- Martin Luther King Jr, Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p.H13007.

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


If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.
- 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 skin. 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...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
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 be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.- Justice Frankfurter, Congressional Record


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



imagine for a second the absolute chaos and disorder that would result if the interpretation of laws became subjective:


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



A pedophile believes that anti-pedophilia laws are "unjust" and breaks them by molesting a child - is he "right"?


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.


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.


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".


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


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]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join