[RC] The POLITICALLY INCORRECT MARTIN LUTHER KING

[Avesland@aol.com]

The POLITICALLY  INCORRECT
              MARTIN LUTHER KING
                              By :  Billy Rojas
 
The Martin Luther King of popular mythology  has little  relationship
to reality. That Martin Luther King is a one dimensional man whose
only interest was Civil Rights. The mythological King was also a  secular
humanist with values entirely consistent with modern day Political
Correctness ideology. However, that man never existed.
 
The article you are about to read debunks modern myths about King,
myths that essentially reduce him to a shadow of who he was. Worse,
contemporary media-led views seriously distort his basic values.  Because
the media does not share those values journalists feel uncomfortable 
coming across them in his writings and in comments about him by those
who worked with him while he was alive. In the process, the truth  about
King is willfully ignored so that a plastic King to the liking of  TV  news 
anchors and big city newspaper editors can be presented to the  public.
Elected officials act in collusion with such myth mongering.
 
Another way to say much the same thing is to note that those people 
who make the most of the MLK holiday each January do little or no
research into the life of Dr King. And what little research they might 
carry out is almost all pedestrian and based on stereotypes and 
commonplaces.
 
King's memory is used for shallow political or cultural purposes. But  the
purpose here is to reveal the character of a complex man with an  inner
life that is NEVER explained to the public.
 
The point of view expressed in this essay is Radical Centrist. This paper 
neither takes the view of just the Left or only the Right. Radical  Centrist
values are both Left and Right in many ways since we believe that  neither
Left nor Right have a monopoly on the truth, and both Left and Right   are
fully capable of error. However, there is always more to say than both 
the Left and Right combined ever tell us  -because any meaningful  truth 
about human beings always requires fresh idea and new perspective. It is 
a fundamental goal of Radical Centrism to seek out good new  ideas.
 
It is also basic to Radical Centrism never to take stands on any issue 
without first doing all  necessary research so that conclusions  reached are 
viable and can pass as many tests of scholarship as it is within reason to 
think are necessary. The point of view of people in the media seems  to
be to do as little research as possible, most of that based on the  obvious,
with no fresh perspective needed. The viewpoint here is the diametric
opposite, which will be clear from the outset after these  introductory
remarks.
 
Resources used for this article feature The Papers of Martin Luther 
King, Jr., edited by Clayborne Carson. The first 4 volumes of  this
set were published in 1984. and include all available materials  written
by King from as far back as records go until the last years of the
Eisenhower presidency. A 5th volume, taking the story into  the first year
of the Kennedy era, was released a few months ago but I have not  had 
access to it  In any case, the conclusions arrived at here do not  depend
on additional letters, memos, sermons, speeches or published  articles.
 
Several standard biographies of King were also consulted in order to
understand various phases of his life and career.
 
Reference is also made to Strength to Love, a collection of  sermons by
King and edited by him, published in 1963. Also used was A  Testament
of Hope  -The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther  King, Jr.
edited by James Melvin  Washington and published in 1985. A variety  of
current scholarly sources taken from the Web have also been made use of  ;
these will be cited in the body of the text.
_______________________________________________________
 
Martin Luther King the Baptist  Preacher
 
What is almost incomprehensible is the fact that many of the people who 
valorize King the most each year utterly despise his religious faith. To  say
the least, this means that almost anything such people may say about  King
is just about guaranteed to misrepresent his actual views and values.
 
Martin Luther King was a Baptist. He never made the least apology 
for his profession and beliefs and , on the contrary, made it clear to 
everyone that he strongly identified with his denomination and the faith 
it professed. To be sure the National Baptist Convention is an essentially 
African-American denomination, but in terms of beliefs and values there 
is almost no practical difference between the NBC and the  SBC    -the  
(mostly Caucasian) Southern Baptist Convention. 
 
Inn other words,  many of the same people champion King and at the 
same time vilify the SBC, indeed, it is common enough to hear these 
people comparing Southern Baptists to Fascists and other crazies. 
Doing so, however, is to vilify Martin Luther King's most cherished 
values.and to unjustifiably smear his faith. 
 
Not that criticisms of Baptists  -and others-  may not be  justified. 
Some Baptists are narrow minded. Some Baptists are patriarchal and
out of touch with all sorts of new truths derived from science. But  other
Baptists are anything but narrow minded and they may not be  patriarchal
at all, nor be opposed to the discoveries of the sciences. It all  depends
 
Yet the critics of Baptist faith tend to be as narrow minded ,  themselves,
as any Baptist ever gets, albeit about different things. In any case, the 
point to make is that condemnation of Baptist views is condemnation of 
the views of Martin Luther King at the same time.
 
In other words, MLK Day in January must become something very 
different than it has been so far. To try and make the holiday serve   values 
 
and interests which are nearly the opposite of what King stood for  cannot
be excused or tolerated by anyone with a conscience.
 
But in case anyone has doubts about King's Baptist identification, the 
facts are available for examination to all who may want verification.
 
King became the pastor of  Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in 
Montgomery, Alabama, and had not been on the job very long when 
Rosa Parks took a seat in the "whites only" section of a city bus and, 
in so doing, ignited the modern Civil Rights movement. King took the lead 
in this cause from the very beginning -as a young man in his later 20s- and 
was called upon to do so precisely because of his leadership role in the 
black community as a preacher. The clergy has traditionally provided 
leaders to African-Americans for the simple reason that pastors are among 
the most well educated in this population and also because social  leader-
ship opportunities have often been unavailable in other professional  fields. 
This is far less true today than 50 years ago, but it was decidedly  true 
in King's time. 
 
At any rate, there is no question whatsoever that King was a Baptist 
preacher.  He always was exactly that, at all phases of his adult  life. 
He never ceased to be a Baptist preacher. More than anything else, 
this is what best explains the  man and the remarkable things he  did 
while he lived. 
 
An article from the Christianity Today website makes all of this clear, 
found under the title, "CT Classic: Catching Up with a Dream."
 
For one thing, King was immersed in Baptist teachings from the time of 
his youth. His grandfather had been a Baptist preacher and so was his 
father, Martin Luther King, Sr. Young Martin regularly attended his  father's 
church in Atlanta, Ebenezer Baptist. Although he went through various 
changes in outlook while he was a student in the North, especially at 
Crozer Theological Seminary, he nonetheless returned to his fundamentalist 
roots, not only as a pastor but in the couple of years before then. As we 
shall see, King's fundamentalism was unique and unlike that of many or 
most Baptists, but it was fundamentalist nonetheless. Which is to say that 
King clearly has more in common with people like Pat Robertson or 
Franklin Graham than he does  with Ted Kennedy and certainly  unlike 
William or Hillary Clinton.
 
"I am fundamentally a clergyman, a Baptist preacher," said King. There 
is no way to pretend that this is not true and no way to interpret his life 
as  if something else was the case. And as the article concluded,  there is 
no way to separate King's faith and his politics. King repeatedly  mixed
religion and politics, as a matter of fact. He did so working on the 
American political Left, however, which today's (sad excuse for the) Left 
forgets, or pretends was not true,  all the while condemning the same  thing 
when it is the political Right that fuses faith and politics.
 
>From late 1955 and throughout 1956, the Montgomery bus boycott 
continued until an agreement was reached with the city to desegregate 
public transportation. The next year, in 1957, King, along with leaders 
like  Ralph Abernathy, organized the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference. There was no question about the character of the Civil Rights 
movement at any stage of its development. It was organized by Christians 
and led by Christians from start to finish even if there were some  followers 
who might be Jews or  who were non-religious. And it was anything but 
coincidental  that the churches were at the center of the movement.  Not 
always Baptist or other fundamentalist organizations, however. Liturgical 
church people, including Catholics,  played a  part as did  the Unitarians, 
but always at the  center were the Baptists, sometimes white as well  as 
black, which King openly acknowledged and  was thankful for. 
 
Ironically, of course, some of the most strident opposition also came 
from Baptists, but that time came and went, its ending epitomized when 
George Wallace embraced the Civil Rights cause in the 1970s.
 
Additional information about these matters can be found at the National 
Archives website under the title "Martin Luther King  -Learning  Curve."
But even more useful is a paper by Bruce Murray entitled  "Understanding
Southerners and their religions" which can be found at Faith and  Public
Life site. It is essential reading for anyone who is serious about King's 
legacy in the modern world.
 
Much can be said about the subject of religion in the South but  perhaps
we can best characterize things by saying that the region is famous  for
valorizing well endowed young women with bouffant hairdos, for such
social gatherings as NASCAR races, and for a plethora of local  taverns
frequented by "good old boys." It also is a place where African  influenced
cooking is favored by multitudes and where Jazz had its origins. 
 
But all this said, what may most characterize the South, to this day, is  that
it is a region where preaching is "considered the highest calling in  life."  
 It
has also been characterized as an area where Christ is everywhere in the 
minds of people, in a variety of forms, but in all cases as the subject  of
personal religion. Conversion is at the heart of Southern faith and this  has
just about nothing to do with rituals. Indeed, ritual is pretty much a  
negative
value, something perceived to get in the way of a personal  relationship
with Jesus.
 
This has led to what has been called the "Southernization of the United 
States," although a countervailing tendency is also under way, what can 
be referred to as the Catholicization of America, but the two  phenomena
exist together for all of us to pick and choose from. Yet the point to 
stress is simply that King was very much a man of the South in many 
important ways, starting with his religious outlook.
 
It is impossible to miss this when reading the papers that King  wrote,
whether meant for publication or intended to be read at formal  occasions
or preached as sermons.
 
We can start with a sermon printed in Strength to Love, the quotes  found
on page 23. The focus was non-conformism, i.e., the way that the Apostle 
Paul was a non-conformist. And by the way, given the considerable 
criticisms made of Paul by feminists and the (modern day ersatz) Left more 
generally, it is important to emphasize the fact that King used the Apostle  
as 
an authority very frequently, from what I can tell more than any other  
Biblical 
writer by a factor of perhaps 10 : 1 . To note the obvious, this is typical  
of 
fundamentalist Christians, with Evangelicals not far behind.
 
At any rate, King argued that Christians who follow the crowd have 
abdicated their responsibilities and this cannot be excused. Still.,
non-conformity by itself proves nothing and is meaningless without faith 
in Christ. The whole point is to take this faith into the world and change 
the world for the better. This requires spiritual renewal.
 
We need to be reborn by renewing our minds. We need a "new mental 
outlook." This can only come about "by opening our lives to God in  Christ."
This is not a matter of walking down Easy Street. Quite the contrary,  said
King further into his sermon, it means willingness to take up the cross, 
willingness to suffer for our beliefs if it comes to that, which it will,  and
only then can we look forward to an eternal future. First there is a  price
to pay, including abuse from others. This is unavoidable.
 
As King said in another sermon, this quote from page 31, "the  ultimate
measure of man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and 
convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and  controversy."
 
In still another sermon, the reference located on page 109, King 
discussed the power of evil. 
 
"Christianty," he said, "has never dismissed evil as illusory, or an error 
of the mind. It reckons with evil as a force that has objective reality." 
The way out from under the spell that evil casts  over all lives is 
through faith. 
 
As page 110 continues, "God walks with us. He has placed within the 
very structure of the universe certain absolute moral laws." We can turn to 
this intrinsic morality at all times when we need to make decisions about 
difficulties in life. Those who call on God at such times will receive the  
help 
they need to make the right choices.
 
But most of all we need Jesus in our lives. This belief is repeated 
numerous times in King's writings and was emphasized in many of his 
sermons. The secular  King of most people who celebrate MLK Day 
in January is a chimera.
 
An address King gave at Holt Street Baptist Church in Montgomery in 
1956 makes this as clear as conceivable. Of course, to people who can
only appreciate King as a leader in the cause of Civil Rights, the core  of
King's philosophy and idealism will never be understood. As the 
following  tells us with no room to doubt.
 
First King made a very non-libertarian point about freedom . For the 
struggle for "Negro" rights, and the rights of all minorities, should not  be 
understood only in the negative sense of freedom. What black people 
want and need is more than not being harassed or harmed. They must 
have "freedoms for."
 
They want and need good schools, and schools where black children 
and white children might attend together. They want and need jobs that 
pay decent wages. They want and need laws that safeguard their 
legitimate political interests. Freedom has little meaning unless it has a 
positive dimension. It cannot simply be a matter of "freedom from."
 
King also made a most important point about respect of other people,
even those you may disagree with. We can be strongly opposed to what
others may think or value. Nothing says you need to respect opinions 
that are questionable or malignant. And as a matter of fact, King did not 
respect the views of the Nation of Islam and had few kind words for its 
leader, Elijah Mohammad. However, King insisted that we should, as 
Christians, respect all people  -as people. We are completely free to 
offer honest criticism of others,  Muslims or even fellow Baptists,  but we 
must respect individual persons.
 
Which is another outlook that is almost totally alien to today's  Politically
Correct ideological Left,. something remarked on by, of all people,  the
Anarchists. They know, all too well, that any other view than what  passes
muster among those who espouse some version of the Democratic Party 
line meets with rejection and attack. But everyone else knows this also, 
whether discussing Baptists or Catholics or Jews, whether talking about 
serious environmentalists, consumer advocates, or  Southerners with  their 
distinctive mix of (mostly) socially conservative values and (mostly)  
liberal 
economic views.
 
That is, the Democratic Party of the 2000s is (A) apparently intent on  its
own self destruction and (B) is a completely different animal than was the 
case in the time of Martin Luther King.
 
That it seems to now be awaking to the need to capture some 
percentage  of the "religious vote" is almost laughable, for the  leaders of 
the party are constitutionally unable to begin to understand  religious faith.
It is not in the least difficult for actual believers to see completely  
through 
Democrats when they say that they are for family values, too, after all. 
Everyone understands that what most Democrats mean when using  those 
words has almost nothing in common with what serious Christians or  Jews
-for that matter Buddhists as well-  mean when identifying with such  values. 
 
When Democrats say that they are also in favor of spirituality it should 
come as no surprize that everyone else takes a dim view and forms a 
mental picture of the deity the Democrats worship, replete with horns 
and a pointed tail.
 
Which I say with the greatest possible dismay as someone who  remembers
what the Democratic Party once was  -in the era when Martin Luther  King
was with us, when it was, warts and all, still a Liberal party and not 
essentially a collection of misfits with nothing much in common  except  
reliance on principles that are nihilistic in character. It is  inconceivable 
that 
King would have identified in any way with today's travesty of the party 
that he knew and respected. The motto, "anything goes," was not in  the
value system of Martin Luther King.
 
At the core of the problem is the  meaning of genuine faith  Here  is how
King understood matters, which the great majority of Democrats of the
1950s and earlier 1960s would have comprehended with no  difficulty.
 
"The essence of the Gospel," King said at Holt Street Baptist Church, 
comes down to the question that Nicodemus asked Jesus. "What must 
I do to be saved ? And I can hear Jesus saying, 'you must be born  again.'
And the minute he said, 'you must,' he means that you can be born  again,
We believe that, and we're going to live by that faith."
 
This faith is so powerful that it can change the hardest heart. Indeed, 
King made the point that even the Ku Klux Klan could be changed and 
become an organization that works for the good.
 
Indeed, it mist be seriously doubted that King would have had any use  for
recent attacks upon the Confederate flag. After all, what matters is not  so
much the symbol (which is a variant on the Cross of St, Andrew) but  how
it is used and for what purposes. What he might well have counseled, if  I
read him correctly, is an effort to convince people to rethink the flag  and
find new benign uses for it. We must admit, furthermore, that the design  is
beautiful, distinctively American, and surely is worth saving, just as  the
most miserable of sinners is worth saving. This is the spirit of Martin  
Luther
King and it has no resemblance to the views of the Politically  Correct
Democrats of the 2000s.
 
Yet it would be a mistake to portray King as part of the Religious  Right,
except on some issues. On other issues he was part of the liberal wing  of
Christian faith. To put it in terms congenial to Radical Centrists, King  
often
exemplified the Radical Centrist outlook. Traditional ways of classifying 
him altogether miss the point of what he was all about.
 
That I know about, for instance, King would have had no patience for
creationism / creation science. King respected science and frequently  used
metaphors derived from physics or other natural sciences in his  sermons
He does not seem to have commented in any depth at all about the issue 
of creation but.at least the impression that comes across is that he  regarded
Darwin as basically right. This had no bearing on his faith, at any rate,  and
why would it have ? 
 
As it is, King was perfectly willing to take an "evolution of ideas"  
approach 
to religion. This is especially obvious in a 1951 paper he wrote about  the
origins of religion, taking a view that is quite different than what one  
finds in
most or nearly all fundamentalist churches. Obviously, said King, a  
literalistic
reading of the Old.Testament paradigm of religious history is  inadequate.
There is no solid archaeological or historical evidence that supports the  
view
that humanity's first faith was pure monotheism, to be followed by  corruption
into polytheistic Paganism. To the extent that there is evidence, which is  a 
great deal, which King knew about since he studied ancient religions  at
Crozer, the facts suggest the exact opposite of what we find in the  
narrative 
of the Pentateuch. 
 
But for King all this did was to raise questions. As long as one had  faith
in Christ a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible was anything but crucial. 
Much better to study the scholarly views of historians, theologians,  sociol-
ogists, and other experts to piece together a truthful picture of what  
really 
happened at the dawn of history as mankind developed spiritual  awareness.
 
And, by the way, this paper, found in the set of King's writings, is well  
worth 
reading on its own as a thoughtful introduction to the topic of religious  
origins. 
This can also be said for still other of King's essays written for his  
professors 
at Crozer, including some of the best minds of that generation, men like 
James Pritchard, the noted scholar of Mesopotamian history, and Morton 
Scott Enslin, at the time perhaps the greatest living empirical Bible  
scholar in 
the world. I have  studied these authors myself, especially Pritchard,  and 
was flabbergasted to  find that not only was King someone who read these 
scholars, he knew them  personally and took classes with  them. He was 
especially close to Pritchard  and sometimes was a  baby  sitter for the 
professor's children.
 
King wrestled with the competing influences of liberal and fundamentalist 
views throughout his life. In the 1950s the question was not usually framed 
as a contest between fundamentalism and liberal Christianity, but  between 
neo-Orthodoxy and liberalism. We can say that in the end, while  King
finally found a spiritual foundation in fundamentalism, he was deeply
influenced by liberal religious views and some of those views were as 
important to him as anything derived from his Baptist heritage. In fact,  a
case can be argued that of all preachers of his time  -and maybe any  other-
he comes closest to the Radical Centrist ideal of balance, of belief in  the
utter necessity of accepting truth from wherever it may come, and  synthe-
sizing these conclusions in a consistent manner.
 
Thus you find in King great openness to the latest discoveries supplied  by
Biblical archaeology, to the latest theological insights from Europe, while 
at the same time grounding his faith on belief in Christ as Lord and  Savior,
with no thought at all of compromising any of the essential teachings in  the
Bible. Contemporary ways of categorizing religious believers  simply do not
apply to Martin Luther King.
 
His Biblical faith, moreover, was not an obstacle to being influenced,  some-
times in profound ways, by Asian religions. After all, although part of  the
concept came by way of Thoreau, the basis of King's non-violent  activism
was a direct borrowing from Ghandi, a sincere Hindu. King was also
favorably disposed to Mahayana Buddhism. About such  subjects, more
will be said later. 
 
And King admittedly was influenced by various of the great philosophers 
of history, among them Plato (whom he seems to have become somewhat 
of an expert on), Kant, Kierkegaard, and even Nietzsche, whom, however, 
he first found fascinating only to reject later.
 
All of this is missed when people focus exclusively on King the leader  of
the Civil Rights movement of the sixties. He was exactly that, of course,  but
to understand WHY he was able to be the kind of leader that he became
it is necessary to learn what you can about him as a whole person.
 
What is almost "most Baptist" about King, however, is generally  completely
misunderstood because of current stereotypes about Baptists. After all, so 
the (so-called) Left insists, Baptists are blue noses and have ice water 
flowing in their veins. This is  about 180 degrees from the truth, at  least 
judging from the hundreds of Baptists I have known in my life. It is  safe to 
say, about which most Baptists would surely agree, the "Puritan" contingent 
among Baptists is a minority. After all, we are discussing, among other 
places, Texas. And this is to say the Dallas Cowgirls cheerleaders, to use 
one example, and a less blue nosed group of presumably mostly Baptist 
young women it is difficult to imagine. Its just that some forms  of conduct 
are completely unacceptable. Opposition to same sex sexuality, for example, 
does not translate into anything remotely like disdain for members of the 
opposite sex  and "friendly relationships" with them, ;-)
 
But its not a good idea to talk about such matters outside of  marriage.
Social rules are social rules.
 
At any rate, in 1965 King was interviewed by Playboy magazine,  this at
a time when the publication was sold on newsstands without brown paper 
wrapping, when it was the hottest topic in the magazine world and  just
about everyone (at least considering men of all ages) inspected or  bought
every issue as it reached the stands. 
 
Isn't this an example of hypocrisy ? Not in the least. Why not ? Because  of
the example of Christ as reported in Matthew 9 : 9 - 13. Jesus sat  among
some of the worst sinners of his day on that occasion, at least by  
implication
including women of easy virtue. His message to his detractors at that time 
was that people of all walks of life need to hear his message, not only  the
virtuous, indeed,  people who are the most obvious sinners need to  hear 
his words most of all.
 
As a reasonable guess King did not think entirely negatively of  Playboy.
However , there certainly was something of this rationale involved in  his
decision to appear in the publication. And it gave him still another  oppor-
tunity to rally support for Civil Rights and preach his Christian  faith.
 
For example, King said, in discussing taking action on behalf of  one's
faith in the public realm, "Christians should compare themselves  to Jesus."
This is necessary because Christ set an example for us to emulate, he  did
not simply mediate and he certainly did not indulge in compromise of  any-
thing important to faith. He acted on the basis of his values and  beliefs.
 
As King added, "as much as I deplore violence, there is an evil that is 
even worse than violence, and that's cowardice." If a believer  does not 
take a stand in the world, if he or she only talks about faith, what do you 
have ? Nothing. Nothing really Christian at any rate. Faith requires  action. 
And it is inconceivable to imagine that the Civil rights movement could 
have had the successes it did without the actions taken by its  supporters.
 
There is, to be sure, also a time for reflection and discourse. King  was
hardly someone who functioned  as a perpetual motion machine.He  also
said, in the Playboy interview, "I subject myself to  self-purification and to
endless self-analysis ; I question and soul search constantly..." He  was
introspective and understood the value of self criticism.  He also  admitted
that "sometimes I am uncertain," but in those times of serious doubt  there
always was an answer because he would then "look to God for  guidance."
 
Secular journalists may well find such views incomprehensible.  For 
Baptists this is as understandable as anything gets. King just described 
what it is that makes someone a Baptist who is confirmed in a living  faith.
Nothing at all says that genuine faith is worry free, without the need  to
resolve new questions, and always absolutely certain. The opposite is
true. Faith is always a challenge as well as a solace.
 
As a pastor,  King also felt an obligation to speak from the pulpit  even 
when his responsibilities kept him away from his church. Thus, while his 
contemporary advocates almost only see someone who spoke at civil 
functions  where religion was not a factor, King made it clear that  such 
an impression is quite false. "Wherever I am," he said, "I try to be in a 
pulpit as many Sundays as possible."
 
What his well wishers on the Right do not get, however, is the fact that 
King sometimes took principled liberal stands.
 
The Supreme Court had recently outlawed school prayer. King 
expressed agreement with the decision. It was necessary,  he said, 
because "in a  pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine  what 
prayer is to be spoken ?" The state, he added, has no right to make this 
kind of decision.
 
In any case all the Court did was to prohibit religious observances per  se
in the public schools, it left intact freedom of religion and we all have  
full
rights to worship in any way we see fit.
 
King also reflected on his past, to more quiet days. "At one time," he  said,
"I dreamed of pastoring for a few years and then going on to a university  to
teach theology." King was a thorough-going Christian in mind and  spirit.
 
And a dedicated Baptist preacher.
 
On August 11, 1957, King gave a sermon at Dexter  Avenue Baptist 
Church. He closed the service in a way familiar to all Baptists, by giving 
an invitation to accept Christ. "Who this morning will accept the Christ ?" 
King asked the congregation. "This is the time," he added, 
"make the decision."
 
The sermon is a masterpiece of theology, by the way. The point that 
King emphasized is that all of us, you, me, whomever you can think of, 
are what we are and who we are because of what others have done in 
our lives.And  as it is with the people we know, especially those who  are
 close to us, so it is with Christ. We are our best, when we are our  best, 
because of our parents or siblings, or because of a good friend, not only 
because of whatever inner motivation that may come into play. But if we 
really are our best we need to recognize that it is Jesus that is  making the 
difference.  Which is a poor way to express what King said with 
incredible eloquence.
 
Grace is what saves us, said King. And faith  -faith not only in the  sense
of sincere belief, but in terms of knowing right from wrong.
 
___________________________________________________
 
Martin Luther King's Opposition to  Homosexuality
 
A number of people who support Political Correctness views have
made statements to the effect that Martin Luther King was silent on
the issue of homosexuality but that his philosophy supports  toleration
of this condition. Actually, it is almost impossible to imagine an  interpre-
tation of King's views that is not further from the mark.
 
The fact is, of course, that King's widow, Coretta Scott King, has  taken
a stand in favor of "homosexual rights." And of all people who can be 
thought of as ostensibly understanding her late husband's outlook,  who
could possibly have a better idea ?
 
However, on analysis, what we have is another example of a phenomenon
that first became well known when Jacquiline Kennedy created the myth  of
Camelot to commemorate JFK. Some years later it became obvious to 
just about everyone that this mythic portrait was largely fictional. As  good 
as the Kennedy presidency could be, which was considerable, Jackie  led
a sometimes anguished life and, to say the least, her anguish increased  in
the years after JFK's assassination when his assembly line scale  womanizing
became public knowledge. Imagery of Camelot had the primary purpose, 
from Jackie's perspective, of sugar coating a bitter pill.
 
In Coretta's case what we find is a woman who seems to have created  an
independent role for herself as a leader in the African American  community,
who, in the process, has felt free to take stands that Martin never took  and
that he would have repudiated were he still alive. There is no other  conclu-
sion to reach once you know the facts. We have a strong, independent 
Coretta as the torch bearer for her deceased husband, more or less a 
worthy successor who expresses views that theoretically take us to where  a
"progressive" Martin would have gone in due course.The trouble is  that
this particular interpretation of King's life does damage to some of the  
things
he most believed in and that are just about impossible to think he would  ever
have modified, no matter how long he might have lived.
 
Coretta insists that Martin would have supported homosexual rights. What 
are the facts ? She also says that Martin never opposed homosexuality. This 
claim is easy enough to refute and, since her view is untenable it makes  her 
other claim virtually unbelievable.
 
Of course there is a large problem for anyone who wants to establish what  it
was that King thought of homosexuality. It does not take long during a  Web 
search for an answer to find sites that state that King never said a word  on
the subject. This is more or less true. However, we need to begin with  the
obvious. Baptists, certainly in King's time, but this remains true to this  
era
in history, have strong aversion to as much as using the word  
"homosexuality."
This form of behavior is perceived as utterly reprehensible and  dehumanizing.
To spend the least time even talking about it is considered to be  socially
unacceptable in  most cases. Therefore, if this unpleasant subject  must be
discussed it is best to refer to it indirectly.
 
For one, I sympathize with such an attitude. Why pollute your mind  with
ideas or imagery that is defiling to the spirit ? Who, in their right mind,  
would
want to spend even one minute thinking about such diseased behavior  and
the mentality that goes along with it ? 
 
However, this viewpoint has a great disadvantage.  It makes it  needlessly
difficult to deal with the threat that homosexuality poses to us all in the  
form
of a ceaseless assault on the family, on community values that have  served
us well for generations, and on such things as government policy  decisions
that have effects throughout the country.
 
King, moreover, was utterly focused on the Civil Rights cause. He was  not
about to divert his attention to other social issues, especially since in  
those
years there wasn't the least clamor for pro-homosexual legislation or  
anything
remotely similar. Essentially it was a non-issue.
 
Nonetheless, there IS evidence.
 
First of all there is a statement by Rev Fred Shuttlesworth, a long time 
friend of Martin. "I've heard Dr. King speak out against homosexuality 
on many occasions." Shuttlesworth did not elaborate but it is not difficult 
to guess the context of some of these comments, church sermons. The one 
place where Baptists find it appropriate to discuss the issue is at worship 
services when a pastor reminds the congregation about Biblical  condem-
nations of sodomy  -the word "homosexuality" was only coined in the  late 
19th century. And although "sodomy" can refer to other sexual sins,
everyone knows that its primary meaning is homosexual conduct.
 
As a Baptist minister King would have, by necessity and conscience,  have 
spoken out against homosexuality on any number of occasions,  including
times when he was a guest preacher and Shuttlesworth was in  attendance.
 
The issue may also have come up from time to time as King visited 
America's cities, including San Francisco and New York. There would have 
been ample opportunity for Shuttlesworth to hear King condemn such
sick sexuality. Which, not at all incidentally, was pretty much what  would
have been said by almost any responsible leader in those years. Even  the
ACLU, until the 1970s, was opposed to so-called "homosexual rights."
As was the Unitarian Church, to mention another highly liberal group  that,
then, was anti-homosexual. It would have been extremely incongruous 
for King to have been supportive of homosexuals  -and the word "gay" 
as a synonym was not in use in that era except secretly, among
homosexuals. 
 
In other words even a thorough search of  book indeces for the word  "gay"
will turn up nothing. And the term "homosexual" will be equally  unproductive
for searching for reasons just explained. You can only find out what  King
thought if you understand what Baptists believe, which apparently NO
people on the Left these days have any interest in doing.
 
At any rate, in time considerable pressures were brought to bear on
Shuttlesworth to retract his statement. As far as much of the  leadership
of black America was concerned, such  a view, held by King, made  the
Civil Rights cause in its 1990s manifestation, "look bad." And there is  just
about no doubt that Coretta sought to make life difficult for  Shuttlesworth
unless he changed his tune. All of these pressures had the desired  effect.
Shuttlesworth recanted.
 
There is a "slight problem" for Coretta and various other high profile  
African
Americans in her circle, however. Explicitly, and in print, Martin made it 
clear that he thought that homosexuality is a mental illness that is a  
serious 
wrong for anyone who takes part in such behavior.
 
Neither Coretta nor anyone else can wish this away nor, for that  matter,
deny the value of all the other evidence that is relevant to the  case.
 
Shuttlesworth was right the first time. His retraction under duress was 
untruthful. There is no other way to say it.
 
For a time in the late 1950s King wrote a column that apparently was
intended for publication in a religious newsletter or magazine. This  column
was called "Advice for Living" and several editions are printed in  King's
collected papers. One issue in particular is germane here, dated January 
1958. It is in this column that King makes his views about  homosexuality
as clear as anyone might  want  -without ever once using the  word
"homosexual"  -or even a euphemism.
 
The format of the column was Question and Answer. A young man  had
written to King, apparently someone in his teens. The writer said that he 
had a serious problem. He was not attracted to girls; instead he was
attracted sexually to boys. He knew this was wrong and asked for  help.
 
King expressed the view that the young man's feelings were probably
acquired culturally  -through others who he associated with,  apparently-
and also through some kind of traumatic experience he had early in  his
childhood. That is, King was analyzing the problem  more-or-less  in
psychoanalytic terms. 
 
But, said King, there is real hope. Admitting that these feelings are wrong 
is the first step and perhaps the most important step in the process  of
overcoming this affliction. Being honest with one's self, in other  words,
is a crucial part of making oneself psychologically healthy again -or  even
really healthy for the first time.
 
Things should not stop there, however. The young man needs help that
he cannot give to himself. So King recommended that he "see a good
psychiatrist." This recommendation, needless to say, presupposes that
the young man is suffering from a psychological disorder.
 
I am not sure what could possibly be clearer. King thought that
homosexuality was a mental illness and something that needed to 
be ended as soon as feasible.
 
Against the view that since King was alive when he was, he "could not 
have known better," the implication being that since his time   psychology
professionals have learned new truths about same sex sexuality that 
renders all previous views obsolete. However, this outlook reflects 
nothing so much as ignorance of the facts -plus a tacit admission  that
someone, whomever takes this position, has been duped by homosexual
advocacy groups. 
 
Without going into a lengthy digression on this topic all that will be  done
here is to make just three facts crystal clear :
 
(1)  The American Psychiatric Association is incompetent and  unqualified
to make judgements to any  effect which has it that homosexuality  is
not pathological. There is a considerable scholarly literature in print  that
makes a compelling case that the APA itself has been hopelessly  compro-
mised ever since 1973 when homosexuals and their supporters  effectively
took control of the organization.
 
(2)  It is absurd beyond belief to treat the acknowledged experts on  this
pathology as no longer relevant, to toss overboard the research  findings
of no less than Anna Freud, Karen Horney [Hor-nay], Irving Bieber,
and many others, and in the process accept the horribly distorted 
so-called "findings" of a demonstrable sexual pervert, Alfred Kinsey,
someone who not only oversaw sexual abuse of children for his major
books, but who mutilated himself repeatedly, the last time inflicting
serious damage to his testicles for sexual pleasure. Which is  anything
but some sort of urban legend; this has been documented in scholarly
literature. For a short but explosive summary of the material that  debunks
Kinsey and exposes him as a complete fraud see the chapter on him in
Daniel Flynn's 2004 book, Intellectual Morons. Kinsey, someone  who
took part in homosexual acts, who falsified research to make a  polemic
case in favor of bisexuality and homosexuality to a public that could not 
know better about his dishonesty, provides the foundation of modern  day
homosexual polemics, not someone else.
 
(3)  For an outstanding source of reliable information about the 
pathological nature of homosexuality see Dr. Charles Socarides 
1995 book, Homosexuality  -A Freedom Too Far. No-one  who
comments on the issue can possibly be seriously informed who has
not read this book or some equivalent in psychoanalytic or related
literature. Socarides was a founder of NARTH, the National  Association
for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and has been for 
many years the leading expert in this field.
 
King, needless to say, was not expert in these matters. The point is  that
his views were consistent with the very best psychoanalytic and other
research of his era. As Socarides makes clear, moreover, the  viewpoint
of people like Bieber, etc, is just as true to the facts now as at any time  
in
the past. All relevant evidence, much of which is reviewed in  Socarides'
book, makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is  now
and has always been a mental illness. King's views, rather than being
obsolete or incorrect, are what are correct, and what is incorrect  and
harmful are the opinions of people like Coretta  Scott King and  various
leaders in the black community.
 
More will be said about this matter later but let us return to Martin's  views
since he said a great deal more that is directly relevant to the  issue.
 
King  took the view that homosexuality was a grievous moral  wrong.
How many times King made an issue out of morality is anyone's guess,
but certainly thousands of times. Which is hardly surprizing. What  Baptist
faith is all about, after belief in Christ, is morality. This is what  
distinguishes
Baptists. Even though some other denominations also stress the impor-
tance of morality the Baptists maximize this theme like no other  Christian
group. And here is the one comparison that can be made between  Baptists
and Puritans. Each of these groups had somewhat different sets of  morals,
with the Baptists clearly more liberal in various ways, but both took , or 
take, morality as having supreme worth in the life of the individual.
 
For some readers the point has already been made. But it seems  necessary
to provide enough evidence so that the Politically Correct parasites of  
King's
legacy will have no remaining recourse.
 
The point should also be made that any Baptist preacher necessarily 
knows the Bible with real thoroughness. No-one becomes a Baptist 
minister unless familiarity with the Bible is second nature.
 
On the issue being considered there is zero doubt that the  Judeo-Christian
scriptures unequivocally condemn homosexuality each and every time  the
subject is discussed. Not that King counted,  but he surely knew the  many
negative references to homosexuality in the Bible, altogether a minimum  of
25 passages in 20 books of the text, exactly half in each testament. 
 
Arguments to the effect that since Christ taught us to love one another, 
therefore we should be tolerant of homosexuals, are nonsensical and
disregard all necessary and logical rules of valid Bible  interpretation.
Or does it make sense to you that on an issue about which he made it
a point to be clear, Christ contradicted himself ?
 
It happens to be false, by the way  -even though all sorts of people  claim
something else- that Jesus never talked about the issue. Actually he  did,
and he condemned such behavior and mentality in the strongest terms
possible. To see for yourself all you need to do is to look  up  Matthew
11 : 20 - 24. This is the famous pericope in which the towns of  Bethsaida
and Chorazin are vilified as even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah,
the clear implication being that homosexuality is approximately the  worst
sin imaginable. There is parallel material in the 10th chapter of  Luke.
 
But the Bible contains many similar statements; in all cases in full  agree-
ment with each other. You can realistically argue that about some other 
issues. There is inconsistency, at least this is my view of the matter,  about
various issues . But  there is no question that about this issue  there  
isn't 
the least disagreement
. 
If you don't like various of the recommendations in Leviticus, in other 
words, that is hardly a serious problem. As many as half  of the 
injunctions in that book are ignored by just about everyone including the 
most earnest of  believers. Tear that book up if you want to. But what 
you cannot do is pretend that the position on homosexuality in Leviticus 
is any different than it is in the other 19 books of the Bible where  this
psychological disability is discussed.
 
And Leviticus isn't exactly the only book in the Hebrew scriptures in  case
you do not accept the worth of the New Testament.
 
King, not at all incidentally, knew the Old Testament quite well. For 
example he once wrote a major paper about the book of Jeremiah. 
King thought highly of the book. He praised it profusely. He also 
studied it in depth. That is,  he knew what it said. from the first  page to 
the last.  Jeremiah 23  :14 talks about Sodom and Gomorrah is  ways 
that leave no doubt that the sin being condemned is homosexuality. 
King saw no reason to dispute this verse.
 
King also wrote at length about Amos, another Biblical book that he 
thought highly of.  Amos 4 : 11 also condemns Sodom and Gomorrah. 
And there are other books of the Old Testament that King cited  any 
number of times, such as Isaiah. Homosexuality is also condemned 
there.  Perhaps you get the idea.
 
As noted,  King was especially favorably disposed to the Apostle  Paul.
In fact when he was a pastor,  one of his sermons was in the form of  an
imaginary epistle written by Paul to the Christians of the United  States.
That is how much Paul meant to him.
 
While it is unclear whether King  ever cited Romans 1 : 24 - 34,  a lengthy
passage in which homosexuals are called , among other things, perverts, 
arrogant fools,and insolent criminals, he certainly cited the opening  parts
of Romans 1 and other passages in the book at different times. And he 
hardly could have missed Romans 9 : 29, which also condemns 
homosexuality in unequivocal terms.
 
But Paul did not stop there. Other condemnations of his are found in
Galatians 4 : 21,  and a short book at least attributed to him,  in  I Timothy
1 : 10. There should be no question about any of this. 
 
Such passages give context to the many times that King talked or  wrote
about morals. But one last religious text needs to be cited. King also  did
a study of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs . This work,  written in
the first century BC, was regarded as the equivalent as scripture for  many
years. Obviously it was not included in the canon when all was said,  but
such writings are studied in divinity schools to give candidates for  the
ministry some idea of the spiritual mileau that existed in the era when 
Christ was on Earth. King was very impressed with the Testament of  the
Twelve Patriarchs. It, too, contains several verses that condemn 
homosexuality.
 
You can look up the Stanford University site called "The Martin  Luther
King Papers Project." It has the most extensive collection of King 
documents on the Web. From this archive there are these comments
made by King about the need to rediscover our roots as Christians.
 
"The first principle of value that we need to rediscover, " he said," is  that
all reality hinges on moral foundations." 
 
In an article published in The Christian Century in April of 1960,  on the
subject "How My Mind Has Changed," King explained why he ceased to
be captive to liberal theology. Again, this was not a repudiation of all  of
that theology, but it certainly was a repudiation of some of it, including 
important parts of it.
 
What King found especially wrong-minded in liberal tradition was its  denial
of the "reality of sin on every level of man's existence." For King the 
insistence of liberal thinkers on the necessity of a lifelong quest for  truth
was indispensable. But ironically this principle led him to discover that 
another principle from this tradition was faulty  -that is, simply  outright 
wrong.
There is no escape from the effects of sin,  nor of the author of sin,  Satan.
 
About Satan, King was not as clear as we might like, in part, it seems, 
because of the disdain for the concept of the Devil on the part of  many
or most contemporary clergymen of that era. Dispute about Satan was
not a battle that King wanted to fight. Also, perhaps, because King  wanted
to keep personal responsibility for wrong-doing in focus.  But nothing  else 
explains sin nearly as well as this malignant evil being. And in any  case
sin is the problem of problems that must be dealt with. Doing so  requires
people to live moral lives.
 
This motif in King's thought can be found almost everywhere. For  instance
answers to an exam he took in 1953 are extant in which he argues that  sin
can be defined as "disobedience to the ethical and  moral law of  God."
 
The Playboy interview makes a similar point.."There are  two kinds of laws,"
King said, "man's and God's. A man-made code that squares with the  moral
law, or the law of God, is a just law. But a man-made code that is  inhar-
moneous with the moral law is an unjust law." And it should be  disobeyed,
he concluded.
 
Obviously the context of his comments was the struggle for Civil Rights,  but
the principle at stake applies to all situations, including sexual  questions.
 
But would Martin Luther King have approved civil laws 
against homosexuality ?
 
(To be continued)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://radicalcentrism.com/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20051030/63639beb/attachment-0001.html