It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
(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?
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
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.
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
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Mmm sounds sexy. It's always good to be reminded as to why you like a paticular person
- Martin Luther King Jr, Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p.H13007.
“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.”
- Justice Frankfurter, Congressional Record (April 18, 1968), p.E3062.
“If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.
“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
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"?
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...