[RC] Politically Incorrect Martin Luther King (Concluded)

[Avesland@aol.com]

The Politically Incorrect Martin Luther King  (Conclusion)
_________________________________________________
 
It should be remembered that in the era when King was alive all 
50 states had some form of anti-sodomy laws, in almost all cases
statewide prohibitions. At no time, as far as information available
allows anyone to say, did King express objection to these laws.
It would  have been incredible if he had done so, moreover,  since
there was almost universal approval. for these measures.
 
Homosexuality was regarded  as what it in fact is, a mental illness 
that has no place in society and that should be legislated against. 
The same conclusion was reached on moral grounds, a viewpoint 
upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as the 
Bowers v. Hardwick decision of 1986.
 
For King to have taken some other position would have required 
him to have taken issue with, among others, Thomas Jefferson, who 
wrote Virginia's anti-sodomy law making this crime a capital offense.
It also would have required King to have argued against nearly all
psychology professionals of his time. The mindset that exists today 
in many places took time to bring about, and would still not exist
except for institutional commitment to homosexual rights (based on
nothing at all except homosexual pressures) at the New York  Times,
NBC TV, and the Clinton White House, to note the most conspicuous
examples  All of which will, soon  enough, be reversed. It cannot 
stand since  the views of such  institutions are based on  falsehoods 
from beginning to end.
 
At any rate, it is nonsensical to anachronistically project the  Politically
Correct views of the 1990s or 2000s onto King in the 1950s or 1960s.
Nor does it make good sense to think that King, who detested mindless
conformism to intellectual fads of dubious worth, would have been as
snookered by Political Correctness values generally as  various African
Americans are today. And not only them, of course, but to stick to
the subject of this paper........
 
King, as we have seen, was convinced that morality was central to any
decent society. The kind of morals he had in mind were derived  directly
from the Bible. His position on this matter is Baptist in every way.  Would
you suppose that , on the issue of laws against homosexuality, he  some-
how was not Baptist ?
 
Throughout his life King descried moral relativism, as he did explicitly 
in a 1956 letter to Clay Maxwell, for instance, where he also  condemned
the worsening secularization of society. It is simply is not valid to think 
of King as some equivalent of a CNN newsman or  a journalist at  the
Washington Post. So that the point does not get lost, Martin  Luther King
was a Baptist minister. He was not something else.
 
During an interview of July 28, 1967, on Metromedia Television, King
made his now famous comment about  the Church as something  that
should be a headlight for society rather than what it too often is  because
if Christian quietists, a taillight. The specific points made during most  of
the panel discussion / interview dealt with Civil Rights, but in all  cases
the principles involved were the same as those that applied to morals
generally.
 
On all social issues, said King, the Church is "the chief moral  guardian
of the community" and it "should be in the forefront, taking a stand."  This
includes political stands. As King also said that day, "the Church  must
support meaningful legislation."
 
But you can't legislate morals ? King dealt with this question is a talk he 
gave at Lincoln University in June of 1961. While it may be true that  laws
cannot make people moral, King said,"behavior can be regulated. And 
this is very important." Because the community has every right to protect 
itself and ensure that the morality on which any healthy society  depends
is respected. "We need religion and education to change attitudes and  to
change the hearts of men," But we also "need legislation and federal  action
to control behavior." It is in this way that we can achieve "moral  ends
through moral means."
 
Of course Martin Luther King would have supported laws against 
toleration of any grave moral evil  -such as homosexuality. And of  course
King would have supported educational reform in which morality is
taught in the schools. For, as he said in a paper about education in
about 1947, "education without morals is like a ship without a  compass."
 
In a speech delivered in 1957 in Nashville, King discussed the issue of 
moral dilemmas and the responsibility of the Church. Again, the  specific
focus of the talk was segregation and the burning need of America for 
Civil Rights, but the underlying principles apply to all moral issues.  We
can, in other words, make a compelling case, in King's own words, for
a moral crusade against toleration of homosexuality. Just as we could
make a similar case against Gangsta Rap and its effects, against  corrup-
tion in government, or against torture of prisoners. But here let us  focus
on the problem of homosexuality.
 
Not only is segregation a "tragic evil which is utterly un-Christian," so  too
is homosexuality and toleration of homosexuals."The churches are  called
upon to recognize the urgent necessity of taking a forthright stand on  this
crucial issue." The importance of this matter cannot be  over-emphasized
because "the popular mind urgently needs direction here." The Church
should "take the lead in strong Christian social action."
 
In the 1960s the Civil Rights movement was essentially a phenomenon  of
the political Left as a political issue. In the 1990s and 2000s  mobilization
against homosexuality is essentially a phenomenon of the Right as a 
political issue. But this is incidental. What matters is morality, not  
whether
some particular moral issue is moreso identified with liberals or  with
conservatives. This was King's view of things, an outlook that seems  to
have been forgotten by nearly everyone. But it is essential to  contemporary
Radical Centrists. For us, morals also are what count the most in  social
legislation, not whether any given issue is labeled Left or Right.
 
Radical Centrists do not go as far as King did, as an ordained minister,  in
making a case for Christian "dual citizenship" in which the values of  Heaven
ought to be worked for on Earth, after all Radical Centrism is a  political
philosophy as we use the term, but our approach is similar. We work on 
behalf of moral reform that is objectively good, in which research 
identifies and determines what is good objectively. Others do almost
no research and simply argue cases on the basis of vested interests  and 
pressure group leverage.
 
Also , like King, although certainly without his enormous sacrifice and 
the need for his incredible courage, we have to deal with the fact  that 
partisans of  Left and Right cast aspersions on our views. After all,  so 
what if something is objectively correct ? What counts in modern day 
politics is whether political action serves the interests of some bloc of 
voters. But King had no use for such thinking and neither do we. He 
cast his opinions in religious terms but we take just about the same  view 
of things even if we basically  are political persons.
 
When we deal with a controversial social  issue what is our frame  of
reference ? As King put it, the question that people ordinarily ask  them-
selves is "what will my neighbors think ?" This becomes, in our time,
what will my colleagues think, or what will  opinion leaders think  ?
 
But this is, said King, the wrong question. What we should ask, he  said,
is "what will God think ?" Pretty much the same effect is gained when 
asking a question like "what will future generations think ?," or  "what
will my conscience tell me if I make a decision that is objectively
indefensible ?"
 
Sometimes popular opinion does matter; this is not in dispute. But
sometimes it is irrelevant,  for there can be no compromise on  issues
of right and wrong, or good vs evil.
 
Martin Luther King said that America must purge itself of  discriminatory
practices. That was then, for the most part this has happened. The  task
ahead of us now is to purge America of toleration of homosexuality.  There
is no excuse for treating a mental illness that damages individual lives,  
that
damages functional families, and that damages communities, as if it was  a
Civil Rights issue. Indeed, as we shall see, there is growing opposition 
among black Americans to equating homosexual agitation with  the 
cause of Civil Rights.But there is one other matter to dispose of  first
before bringing this discussion about King and his opposition to a  close.
 
        The Strange Case of  Bayard Rustin
 
What homosexuals who invoke King's name insist is that Martin would
be in their camp if he was still alive because of his relationship with  the
late Bayard Rustin. And there is no question about the existence of  some
kind of relationship, for a time possibly even a friendship.But we  ought
to look at the details before leaping to any conclusion.
 
Rustin, later in his life, was an  open homosexual. He became somewhat 
of a celebrity in the homosexual "rights" movement by the 1980s. And  after
being publicly exposed in 1963 he did little to conceal his  homosexuality.
Yet until the 1970s he basically did not make an issue out of his  proclivity
and may even have denied it on various occasions. The facts are not 
entirely clear about those years, at least not clear to me, but what  matters
in the context of King's life are Rustin's actions in the late 1950s and  into
the 1960s. In this period there is little evidence to the effect that  Rustin
was all that forthcoming about his homosexuality. And he seems to  have
lied to King on at least one occasion, denying that he was still  homosexual.
This, needless to say, is important.
 
As the Montgomery bus boycott was becoming a major political cause
in 1956, it was evident that King had limitations in his skills as a  movement
organizer. Someone who had such skills was Rustin, older than King,  and
a veteran of Left wing social mobilization efforts in the 1940s and early  
50s.
 
It  must be doubted that King ever felt completely comfortable with  Rustin
even after the senior activist arrived in Alabama to lend his support  and
expertise to what had become the center of a nationwide movement. For
King knew about Rustin's political past as a one time member of the
Communist Party. 
 
To be sure, in 1956 Rustin had put his CP past behind him, as far as  anyone
can now say, and became closely associated with A Phillip Randolph, at  the
time the most respected political figure among African Americans in the  US.
King, as soon as the Civil Rights movement became politically  important,
found himself consulting with Randolph and other black leaders of  national
stature. He both could not ignore their advice and did not  want to ignore it.
Rustin was recommended to King by Randolph.
 
This is the context for the arrival of Rustin. And he provided  valuable
organizing help. But soon enough, Rustin's homosexual past caught up
with him, something that he apparently never told King about.That is,  the
relationship  seems to have begun with deception.  In any case  Rustin's 
1953 arrest in  Pasadena, California,  for sodomy, became  known
in Montgomery and that was the end of Rustin's presence in the city.
 
King did meet with Rustin elsewhere on one occasion , which was
unavoidable since Bayard had created a network of people to carry
out various tasks, and King periodically communicated with him over
the months for the same reason, but Rustin was out of the picture and
King rose to the occasion as the major leader of the movement.
 
Because of a new biography of Rustin by John D'Emilio and a PBS
documentary based on this book, Bayard has become a hero among
homosexuals and their supporters. In the process, due to Rustin's
association with King, Bayard is credited with a variety of Civil  Rights
achievements that , in turn , have been appropriated by homosexuals
as part of their heritage. That all of this stretches the truth beyond 
recognition does not  matter. And since the media is incompetent to 
carry out serious critical research no-one is the wiser. But the effect 
has been to elevate Rustin  to prominence and to give credence to 
the view that King tolerated homosexuality.
 
Several websites now exist that lionize Rustin. When you examine their 
contents carefully, however, a number of problems become apparent.
 
For example, an article by Detroit News reporter Michael Hodges,
featured on one site, makes it clear that the leadership of the Civil  Rights
movement was uncomfortable with Rustin. Ralph Abernathy, for  instance,
was cited as expressing unease among church people. They did not think 
that Rustin's participation was a good idea at all.

 
But there was no good way to exclude him. Rustin had, in fact, 
contributed to the Montgomery boycott. And he was to become
part of King's SCLC. Yet it seems inconceivable that Rustin was  candid
about his sexuality in these years. To say the same thing, it seems  likely
that Rustin was secretive with King and other movement leaders in the 
South, whatever may have been the case in New York or other cities
in the North, or on the West Coast. This is important to point out  because
the movement remained primarily centered in Dixie even after it began
to reach elsewhere in the early 1960s. That was anything but an era  of
Internet communication and instantaneous information nationwide.  Instead
it was a time when it was still possible for secrets to be kept in one  part
of the country and remain unknown elsewhere. Rustin seems to have
worked this system to his benefit concerning Martin Luther King.
 
But there is a pattern of lying in accounts of Rustin's participation in  the
movement. For instance D'Emilio, a professor of the equivalent of  "Political
Correctness Studies," says that Rustin was who was really responsible  for
King's interest in Gandhi. This view is demonstrably false since King  was
writing about Gandhi in his student years, a decade before he even  met
Rustin. Which is hardly inexplicable. Gandhi was a contemporary and,  until
his assassination in 1948 he was in the news almost daily. King,  moreover,
had a fascination with India that was foreign to Rustin, who essentially  got
his non-violent views from his Quaker parents.At that, King  explicitly
denied that he ever was an uncompromising pacifist even if he went to
great lengths to urge non-violence in all possible cases. Its just that  there
might be times when officially sanctioned police or military action  would
require use of force. Rustin did not take this view and opposed it.
 
Then there is mythology to the effect that the serious Left -beyond the 
Democratic Party-  was pro-homosexual in those years. This is utter 
nonsense.
 
To consider the most extreme manifestation of the Left, Communism, 
those were years when Stalin ruled the Soviet Union. From the 1920s
until the 1990s Russia had approximately the most draconian laws
against homosexuality of any nation on Earth. To say the least the CP
followed suit, in all places where it existed. Which raises questions 
about claims to the effect that Rustin was "always queer.," a view  that
fits current homosexual propaganda purposes since the dogma of
so-called "gay rights" has it that homosexuals are born that way and
the condition is genetically determined. It is not , of course, it purely  is
a matter of choice with no verifiable genetic component. So, in the  years
that Rustin belonged to the CP , in the 1940s, was he still sexually 
normal ? He would have been kicked out of the party if he was 
homosexual and other party members learned of it. In any case, 
someone is lying about Rustin.
 
To consider the anti-Communist Left, the Socialist Party of Norman
Thomas, the SP was also anti-homosexual, albeit in a humane manner.
Socialists recommended therapeutic treatment so that homosexuals
could become cured of their pathological condition. Which is hardly
inexplicable, either. The number 2 man in SP leadership ranks was
the noted psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm. In Fromm's view, 
homosexuals are mentally ill. 
 
As the Civil Rights movement progressed in the 1960s the outlook of
the "hard Left" tended to become more pronounced. Into the 1970s
a viewpoint epitomized by Eldridge Cleaver was still normative, that
homosexuals are sick and a disgrace to anyone who associates with 
them. Although there were a few Left wing black activists in that era
who were open to some degree of acceptance of homosexuals (Huey
Newton, for example), it is just about ridiculous to identify the  Civil
Rights movement in its heyday as remotely sympathetic.
 
So we have a "re-interpreted" Rustin now presented to the world as
an early champion of homosexual causes supposedly in the forefront
of the movement that Martin Luther King led. The facts tell a
different story.
 
King not only was pressured by Randolph to make use of Rustin, others
expressed similar opinions, most notably Lillian Eugenia Smith, the  noted
novelist. Her letter to King of March 10, 1956, argues on behalf of 
Bayard. The impression that one gets is that Rustin was propelled  into
the Civil Rights movement against the better judgement of King. This
seems to be an inescapable conclusion when thinking about later
developments.
 
To be sure, real life is seldom ideologically pure as it is lived out.  There
is no question that Rustin made himself useful to the SCLC and other
parts of the movement between 1957 and 1960. As Abernathy said,
however, most people were uncomfortable working with him. If he
gave the impression of not being homosexual he nonetheless had a 
proven homosexual past and might still be a pervert  -the term  very
much in vogue in that era to describe homosexuals, a usage  popularized
by Sigmund Freud.
 
King, at any rate, did not disavow Rustin and made the best of the
situation. This lasted until someone who knew all about Rustin became
a factor in the story in 1960. That is when Harlem  congressman, Adam
Clayton Powell, for reasons related to Democratic Party  politics that
year (when Kennedy was to be elected in a very close contest against
Richard Nixon) decided to make an issue out of Rustin's homosexuality. 
Some kind of warning or implicit threat was made. At that, Rustin offered 
his resignation, apparently from the SCLC and possibly from other 
organizations affiliated with King.
 
Without hesitation, King accepted the resignation and that ended
all contact between the two men for almost three years.
 
Even writers who seek to maximize Rustin's role in the movement.,
like Richard Burnett, admit that this was a "betrayal" by King. That  is,
King acted resolutely when it finally became possible to do so  without
creating any number of internal political problems.
 
After all, Rustin was sort of a protege of Randolph, someone whose
advice and counsel could not be ignored. But Powell's stature as a
powerful politician outranked Randolf and, as well, Powell also
represented the same area where both Randolf and Rustin had
influence, black Manhattan. At least as I see it, King was relieved
to be able to "exile" Rustin. Good riddance, in other words.
 
But Randolph was not out of anyone's picture and in due course
plans were under way for the 1963 march on Washington. And 
Randolph insisted that Rustin should be the event's chief organizer.
 
Burnett also admits that the great majority of Civil Rights activists  and
leaders believed that Rustin was a huge liability, but Randolph could
not be antagonized, certainly not openly, and this created serious
problems. A compromise was finally reached that more-or-less 
satisfied  Rustin's worst  critics, such as Roy Wilkins, and  he became 
the deputy director  of the march, with the directorship going to 
Randolph himself.
 
King told Wilkins that the internal issue of Rustin should not get in
the way of the larger purposes of the event. Moreover, so it seemed
at least, there was no valid reason to think that Rustin was still  taking
part in homosexual activities, all that was known  were rumors.  Thus
plans went forward.
 
King had this organization in place, which was not  exactly at  his
initiative, when Strom Thurmond made a speech from the Senate floor
in which he attacked Rustin as a "sexual pervert." What could King
do at that point ? Plans for the march were in place and there could
be no question of turning back. So, King defended Rustin in much
the same way he neutralized the fears of Wilkins. Thurmond's 
complaints were essentially ignored -but not only because of King.
 
JFK was president and the White House also had a political interest
in the success of the gathering. Rustin might be a liability but from  a
larger perspective he was no more than a footnote. So much for
the supposedly major role Bayard played at the time.
 
King, after 1963, resumed contact with Rustin and met with him as
he did with many others in the years up to his death in 1968. How  much
to make of this is an open question but nothing suggests that King  ever
changed his views in opposition to homosexuality, especially if, as  far
as he actually knew, Rustin was no longer in that category.
 
One thing is certain. J Edgar Hoover sought to associate King with 
Rustin as if the two were sexual partners. In the months and years after 
King's death the absurdity of this idea became obvious to everyone. 
 
While it is true that this hardly makes King a paragon of Christian virtue, 
i.e. it tells us that he was capable of hypocrisy, the relevant fact  here is 
that King turned out to have had sexual affairs with an assortment of
young women. He was, given his four children as well, as heterosexual
as anyone gets . As was someone else with a high public profile in  that
era. It wasn't only King who was involved in "dangerous liaisons" in 
those years, JFK was a de facto polygamist as we all learned a decade
or so after his demise.
 
More to the point here, while Coretta and other black leaders have
sought to make Martin into a supporter of homosexual rights, a number 
of non-insider black leaders have made themselves known in the recent
past to champion the view that any interpretation of King as 
pro-homosexual is completely false.
 
An example is Rev. Clenard Childress. His views can be read online
in an essay entitled "Black Leadership's Misplaced Priorities." While 
Childress is most focused on abortion, something he cannot conceive
King would ever have condoned, he also makes the point that the 
viewpoint in all of King's known addresses is entirely inconsistent  with
any pro-homosexual position.
 
A similar argument is made by Rev. DL foster in another online paper,
this one entitled "Former homosexuals refute claims by black gay  marriage
advocates." For the benefit of doubters, noted Foster, "there is not one 
single comment on record anywhere that can be attributed to Dr. King  in
support of homosexuality." As well, to this day the American black
community is opposed to sexual perversion and rejects any notion of
homosexual marriage by huge margins, on the order of 2 : 1 against, 
with a similar ratio against civil unions.
 
Three of Martin's children have been silent in public on the issue. 
But they are in a difficult situation. They may know quite well  that their 
father was disapproving of homosexuality, but they do need to think 
about their mother's public standing. It may be most telling that, as far 
as I know anyway, none of these three, have made public statements in 
defense of Coretta's views. But such constraint does not apply 
to King's niece.
 
Starting on August 19, 1997, Alveda Celeste King , has publicly
denounced homosexuality all over the country. Needless to say, for
her efforts, Alveda has been repeatedly vilified by homosexuals.
 
Then there is Bernice King, a daughter of Martin Luther King.
Whatever misgivings she may have had about her mother's views,
Bernice, at least since 2003, has been an outspoken champion of
a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. In that 
year Bernice led a parade of King followers to her father's grave
in order to make a public statement in support of the proposed
amendment.
 
___________________________________________________
 
The Unknown Martin Luther King
 
Now we get to even more interesting material about Martin Luther  King.
Indeed, it was a temptation to entitle this section of the article 
"Martin Luther King the Radical Centrist."
 
Of course, it would also be anachronistic to use 21st century  political
vocabulary to describe some one who was a man of the 1950s and 60s,
but, as noted, it is impossible to characterize him with terminology  that
was current in that era. He identified politically with the Democratic  Party 
of that era but in many ways he was effectively a modern day  Republican.
That is, like Radical Centrists of 2005, King felt equally strongly  about
values associated with both conservatism and liberalism, and, as  well,
he took an independent path of his own invention on any number of
occasions. This is what defines  Radical Centrism.
 
King , for one thing, Baptist or not, was ecumenical. He had the  greatest
respect for ideas which he knew from his study of Comparative  Religion
and the history of religions. For which we can thank James Pritchard  at
Crozer more than anyone else.
 
In other words, as Christian as King was, once you read his papers  about
other religions you can easily see the influence ideas from these faiths  
played
in his life. His story is the saga of an ecumenical man.
 
Another temptation is to analyze his essays about ancient religions in  
detail.
This won't be done here since the discussion would become needlessly
complex, but a few salient observations can make an effective  point.
 
Consider a 1948 paper about the religions of the ancient Mid East,  "Light
on the Old Testament," etc. In this document King discussed the  religions
of Mesopotamia, Sumer as well as Babylon, and developments in Egypt
and Ugarit / Ras Shamra. Long before I ever heard of any of this, King  was
in the midst of a serious study of the attributes of the High God, Enlil,  the
Goddess Ishtar and a host of lesser known Goddesses, Tammuz, the 
Sumerian "Noah," Ziusudra, the differences between the theology of 
Sumerians and Akkadians,  the Code of Hammurabi,and  the 
Epic of Gilgamesh. 
 
He also went on to note the many parallels between Mesopotamian  religion
and various parts of the Bible. Not uncritically, he also noted some  signifi-
cant differences, but his focus was on obvious influence from the  ancient
civilization of the Tigris and Euphrates on early Israel and what  would
become the Torah and other sacred Hebrew texts. Then King went on to
do the same thing for Egypt and its religious traditions and those of  the
Canaanite city state of Ugarit. There even is a section of his lengthy  paper
about ancient Arabian religion, millennia before Islam, when the  religion
of that area was similar to Mesopotamia.
 
As King said in the introduction to his paper, in a pre-summary of what  he
was about to discuss, referring to all of this information now revealed  by
archaeology, "no logical thinker can doubt the fact that these ...findings  
are
now indispensable to all concrete study of Hebrew-Christian  religion."
 
So much for any view to the effect that King was not appreciative of  the
value of the core faith of the people who brought us the first  civilizations
in the world. King was very appreciative  -and obviously saw the  worth
of the study of history. But there is more.
 
Another paper, this written for Morton Scott Enslin for a class on the  theme
of ancient Hellenistic religion, was all about Mithraism and  Zoroastrian
contributions to spiritual tradition, including our Biblical heritage. King  
would
return to the topic of Mithraism / Zoroastrianism , something that  clearly
fascinated him for all the similarities he saw between this tradition  and
aspects of Christianity.
 
Still another paper, this written for Professor Davis, discussed in great 
detail, the influence of the mystery religions on nascent Christian  faith.
That is, King studied and had many good things to say about Goddesses 
like Athena and Demeter, about Inanna as prototype for many of the
attributes of the Virgin Mary, about the cult of Adonis with its shrine  at
Bethlehem, about the effects of Egyptian stories about Osiris and Isis 
upon the ideas of the first Christians, about the Pagan origins of  many
Easter customs, and about much else. Suddenly I was back at Roosevelt
University as a student of history myself, now marveling that Martin  Luther
King had done similar study, including study of some subjects I still  have
not gotten to, years and years before they became important to me.
 
To make this clear, another time, King was critical. At least he was,  at
various points. He did not simply accept it all, undigested, but he  certainly
was an enthusiast. And then came the "kicker." I could not believe it  when
I first read it. But there it is : The foundational principle in my own  
religious
quest over a lengthy lifetime. Said King, expressing a conclusion after 
intense study of all kinds of religions of history, "the staggering  question
that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress  ?
Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of  religious
thought or will there be another religion more advanced ?"
 
Those words were written at the end of 1949, with some revision in  early
1950. The next semester King took a class called  "History of   Living 
Religions," viz., Comparative Religion. His paper for this course was  called
"The Chief Characteristics and Doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism."
 
All of this manifestly is NOT the Martin Luther King that the media  deigns
to present to the public each year in January. King was as impressed  as
anyone gets with the subject matter of world religions. It may well be  this
is the paper  that gives us his point of spiritual entry into the  religions 
of
India, something that allowed him to develop a rationale for adoption  of
Gandhi's Hindu-Jain-Buddhist inspired doctrine of non-violent social 
action. King wrote about the "radical transformation of Buddhism" by
the Mahayana, but, of course, what was surely on his mind was a  radical
transformation of Christianity. Starting from fundamentalist premises  !
 
King was especially attracted to Mahayana emphasis on the value of
emotions in the quest for enlightenment, perhaps a unique  interpretation
of what this tradition is all about but nonetheless viable enough as a 
viewpoint. That is to say, Mahayana stress on the importance of  love 
and compassion resonated with King. This reinforced ideas and values
he already believed in from his Christian faith. And here was a  completely
different religious tradition giving him fresh insight into the worth of  
love.
 
What struck him even more was the strong parallelism between Mahayana
bodhisatva doctrine and core beliefs of Christian faith.  All of which  King
could understand while reading the works of Buddhist thinkers like 
Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosa. This was a serious class in Comparative
Religion, there isn't the least doubt about it.
 
What Mahayana is mostly all about is the salvation of men and women
from a world filled with suffering , ignorance, and illusion. This does  not
mean that all there is in the world are such negative qualities, but  clearly
any realistic view of things tells us that there is an abundance of  exactly
such phenomena.
 
Every so often someone arrives in the world with all the potential 
necessary to achieve the deepest form of Nirvana, as happened in the 
case of Gautama Buddha. However, the example of Buddha is still very 
much with us, he still is the Tahagata,  the "Teacher to All the  World." 
Therefore what is needed even more in our time  are people who, with  all 
of Gautama's potential, refuse to go the final step into Nirvana and  
instead, 
vow to forego any such thing until all possible men and women are led to 
the truths that Buddha taught and themselves are on the path to 
enlightenment. This is the ultimate self sacrifice, seeking the  salvation
of others ahead of one's own salvation. And from this flows a system  of
morality that in many ways is a mirror image of what we know from the
best of Christian faith. In fact there  are some incredibly  striking
similarities even in the wording of various Mahayana Buddhist  teachings
such as Buddha's counsel, close indeed to something Paul said, to  "work
out your salvation with diligence."
 
To make this clear one more time, King also offered a number of  serious
criticisms of Buddhist positions. Yet, when all is said, we are left with  the
unmistakable impression that King was deeply moved by his encounter  with
the religions of India and Mahayana Buddhism in particular.
 
The basic textbook for the class was S. Radhakrishnan's Indian  Philosophy.
And , while King does not seem to have written a paper about Hindu  ideas,
he refers to them in the study of Mahayana. in which, needless to say, he  
also
commented on Theravada tradition.
 
In 1959 King traveled to India where he had the opportunity to meet
Radhakrisnan. And this , too, greatly impressed King. Said King in  1961,
"the destiny of the United States is tied up with the destiny of India."  King
added that America's destiny was connected to all other nations as well, 
but India is singled out for special attention.
 
We can ask whether King's fascination with ancient religions carried  over
in any way into his professional and public life. After all, if King was  
simply
trying to impress his teachers that would be one thing. Only if his  comments
about these faiths, including the religions of India, had meaning for him  
after
leaving school could we make any sort of claim about importance.
 
What can't be said is that King went overboard. I have only read selected 
King materials, a lot of material but nonetheless only a representative  
sample,
but in  nothing that I know about does King preach, let us say, the  
equivalent
of a Buddhist sermon or try to convert anyone to Mesopotamian  religion.
HOWEVER, there certainly are all sorts of examples of where his  education
in world religions  shines through like a light.
 
Let us take just one example, Goddesses. To say the least, the theme
of Goddesses is atypical for the vast majority of Baptist preachers. But 
King had a different take on the significance of female deities.
 
For whatever reason the Goddess Nemesis had a fascination for King. We 
can read about her in a sermon in Strength to Love, on page 82 in  the book.
There, however, this divinity only is mentioned incidentally to illustrate  a 
point about destiny and fighting the power of evil. But in 1957, in a  sermon
delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, King made a major point  about
how this Goddess has the function, as the Greeks understood her, to  equal-
ize life in society when things got out of hand. In effect she is the  
Goddess of
the virtue of balance.
 
Not that King was remotely a devotee of Nemesis. All anyone can really  say
is that he  found such ideas useful as metaphors. But I am not so sure  that 
this is all there is to it, since King returned to the theme of this   
Goddess.  
Not a lot should be read into this, but as a  point of  fact.
 
He was unusual in how he developed his utterly Baptist sermons,  however.
For example in the Dexter Baptist sermon that features Nemesis, he  talked
about Marian Anderson, the famous conductor Toscanini,  the  Philharmonic
Orchestra of New York, and composer Jean Sibelius. And, O yes,  Galileo
and Copernicus.
 
This is the same sermon quoted previously in which King concluded  with
a compelling invitation to faith in Christ.
 
King was not reluctant to talk about other faiths, certainly not all that  
often,
but now and then, and it always is clear that he knows the subject. 
 
For instance, in May of 1956, King gave a guest sermon at the  Cathedral
of St. John the Divine in New York. The sermon is as Christian as  anyone
could ask for but for several minutes, judging from page space, King 
discussed some of the world's religions and what they may mean in an
age where people are becoming citizens of one planet.
 
Hence, extended comments about Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, with
supplementary remarks about Jewish religion and Platonism. It is safe
enough to say that such ideas had value to King. And how much more
might be extant in King's copious papers can only be guessed, but 
quite possibly a great deal. 
 
Finally, to conclude this discussion of King and global religions, there  is
a most interesting item to discuss.
 

In November of 1957 in one of his "Advice for Living"
columns, King talked about love. "Love, " he said, "is an absolute
necessity for the survival of our civilization. To return hate for  hate
does nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe.  Someone
must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of
hate and evil, and this can only be done through love."
 
Of course, it is little problem to find Christian precedent for these  remarks
But if you have a good translation of the Dhammapada nearby look  up
chapter #1, sometimes titled "The Twin Verses.". I don't know about  you,
but form my perspective King's direct inspiration was this   -Theravadin-
Buddhist material. As Guatama said, "for hatred does not cease by  hatred
at any time; hatred ceases by love -this is an eternal law."
 
King , to be sure, made much of Christian understanding of  love.  During a
speech in Atlanta addressed to an NAACP gathering at Big Bethel AME
Church. King made use of the Greek he leaned while attending  seminary.
Thus a dissertation about the meaning of philia, eros, and  agape. Maybe
these comments were not at the level of New Testament Greek  scholarship
but they certainly got the point across and there is no question that  King
understood the ideas he was conveying.
 
In this same talk King brought up the ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 
Toynbee, and Shakespeare, going on to mention the art of  Michelangelo
and the music of Beethoven. Oddly the mass media never seems to pick 
up on any of this.
 
At any rate, this is also the talk is which a theme made famous by the  poet
John Donne seems to first make an appearance, "no man is an island."
This concept would be used repeatedly in King's talks and sermons  over
the years, generally modified into the idea that we live in a world in  which
there must be increasing brotherhood  -both because it is moral and 
because unless it comes about that all people learn to respect each  other
we will destroy each other.
 
Also from King's talk at Lincoln University in 1961, King said that "we 
need a world of brotherhood." And we "must develop a world perspective 
if we are to survive." The real lesson in everything, King continued, is  
that 
"I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. 
You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be."
 
But to go back a few years, to a paper King wrote for a course in  modern
Christian theology, we find King allowing for people who choose not to 
have a religious faith. Humanists, in King's view, may believe in some 
untenable propositions but they , too, deserve respect. And we  especially
need to respect the high value they place on rationality. I am  unfamiliar
with any other comments King may have made about Agnostics or  Atheists
but my conclusion is that he had no problem in accepting them as  people
nor any problem in listening to their ideas. King might well have  thought
that his ideas were superior but that hardly says that no other ideas have 
merit nor that he can't learn from others.  And , who can say ?, in  time
perhaps some non-believers can be won over.
 
In any case, we need all of the good ideas that can come our way. Our
task is to know everything possible about the human mind and human
society, not only to understand things of the spirit. We also need to
study the past since history is another word for memory, and the
more we can remember the more we are prepared to fathom the
realm of the future.
 
In another sermon published in Strength to Love, King made use of 
a figure of speech that would also become a staple of his  reperatoire.
He observed that most people have great fear about taking any  position
that might make them stand out from others. Conformism is a sort of
hidden creed even among Christians. But if we are to create the kind
of future that we surely hope and pray for as men and women of faith,
this attitude won't do.
 
Christians must cease to be thermometers that only register the  social
or political temperature. They ought to become thermostats that
regulate the temperature of society and modulate the political  process.
 
Where King was weakest, or so it seems to me, was in the area of
personal honesty. This is not to say that about most things he wasn't
truthful, maybe truthful to a fault. But there is a glaring  discrepancy
to think about and feel sorrow over. Why did King habitually  plagiarize
material in his school papers ? 
 
A mini scandal erupted in the 1990s when it was discovered that  King's
doctoral dissertation was largely lifted from someone else's work. But  as
the first volume of the King papers makes clear, about half of his  course
essays contain extended passages that are nearly verbatim cribs from
various books or scholarly articles.  What makes this especially hard  to
accept is the fact that King, when he expressed his  own ideas and  did
his own research,  was as competent as conceivable. Why then,  did
he do it ? I do not have a clue.
 
But one paper among his writings in the years after leaving school, 
is anything but plagiarized, already referred to, his article for 
The Christian Century. Apparently at some point, for 
reasons that are not specified, King finally realized that copying  the
work of others was a bad idea. Parts of this article read like self-
scolding, with insistence on intellectual honesty and integrity. That  is
the Martin Luther King who finally emerged.
 
As an aside, how could King get away with as much plagiarism as
he did ? Not a problem. As a former college teacher I can report 
that it is quite difficult to detect such things. Any skilled student  writer 
can incorporate words of others into one's own work in such a way 
that the finished product seems to be entirely original .But I only
learned this after the fact, now and then stumbling across books
or articles that suddenly jarred my memory. As if to think, "wait a
minute, where have I read that before ?" Then comes the shock of
recognition. "I read it in an "A" paper that one of my students
wrote 10 years ago." So it goes.
 
King's article for the magazine includes comments that can be taken 
as sermon material on the worth of honest research and writing. Some
years ago, said King, he finally realized that he had arrived at a  point
where he developed a "new appreciation for objective appraisal and
critical analysis." It is "shameful to take the low road," he added,  not
directly commenting about his student past, but nevertheless a remark
that can be taken in that sense. Somehow King had learned his lesson.
It would have been far better had he learned it sooner, but we can all  be
thankful that he did learn what he needed to learn.
 
How, then, did King make use of his new virtue ? Through a  soul-searching
quest for the best ways to actually "eliminate social evil." This led King  to
the Social Gospel writings of the famed Baptist preacher, Walter 
Rauschenbusch. He "left an indelible imprint on my thinking," said  King.
This was at or near the start of King's leftward turn.
 
Not that King ever went very far to the Left. And not that his version  of
the Left left many conservative ideas behind. In terms of a number of
social values King, as noted, had views similar to many of today's
Republicans. But he was never attracted to the serious political  Right,
and the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson, which was committed
to the War in Viet Nam, made King unhappy. In time , while he never
seems to have joined, he increasingly identified with the Socialist  Party
of Erich Fromm and Norman Thomas. The SP was cheered for this
at least qualified endorsement from King and apparently Martin gave
permission for the party to use his name in some of their  advertising.
 
A Socialist Party pamphlet  is available on the Web in which MLK
features prominently under such headings as "Dr Martin Luther King
on Justice for the Poor." As the document tells us, the idea was  being
floated in 1968 for a third part effort under the Peace and Freedom
Party banner. King would have been the standard bearer. Dr Benjamin
Spock would have run for Vice President. While not officially the SP,
this party clearly was its surrogate.
 
You might  be able to access the pamphlet at the SP website :
_http://www.socialistpartyusa.org_ (http://www.socialistpartyusa.org) 
 
This should not be that big of a surprise , however, when you  consider
that one of King's intellectual heroes was Reinhold Niebuhr. While in
King's day Niebuhr was not (especially) politically active,  he had  been
a very active member of the SP in the pre-War years. King would have
known this. And from what evidence exists on which to from a  judgment,
it seems that King found himself at a place in life where, on the  issue
of liberal Democratic Socialism, he said to himself, "now is the  time."
 
Two final points.
First, the SP of that era was more-or-less the Left wing of the still  very
labor oriented Democratic Party. Many Socialists were members both 
of the SP (or the YPSL) and the Democratic Party. Separate  Socialist
identity was an insurance policy and a guarantee that SP members  would
continue to provide fresh new ideas to the Democrats arrived at  without
needing to kowtow to various pressure groups among Democrats. In any
case the SP was avowedly democratic and despised the Communists.
 
Secondly, King was clearly influenced by the example of Koinonia  Farms
at Americus, Georgia. Koinonia was led by Clarence Jordan (pronounced
Jer-dan), a white Southerner who believed in racial equality,  brotherhood,
and the kind of Christian communities described in the book of Acts.
 
Koinonia was integrated and, for a time its various foods and  products
enabled it to thrive as a business as well as an integrated "commune."  But
these were not Counter-Culture "hippies." The group had existed from 
some date in the 1940s and all members were working people, including
farmers, plus a leadership who, like Jordan, had education for the  ministry.
But by  King's  time Koinonia had come under attack from local  racists.
This led to what you can imagine, with the group virtually living under  siege
for several years. Koinonia still exists and the reason it survived, its  
members
believe,  is because they remained true to Jesus' teachings and always  were
non-violent.
 
King first found out about Koinonia in 1956 in the midst of the  Montgomery
boycott. He seems to have been very favorably impressed. As well ,  his
contact was Ernest Morgan, an Ohio publisher who, for some time  before
his business venture, was a Socialist.
 
Morgan apparently also told King about Highlander Folk School in  rural
Tennessee, because, at the height of attacks against Koinonia the  group
decided to send all their children to Highlander for reasons of safety.  King,
of course, would later visit Highlander -which was, it must be said  (which
I know from first hand experience),  a "radical" institution. But not  in the
least in any subversive sense. Highlander is an Appalachian radical
institution, and its form of radicalism is pretty much a version of  up-dated
native American 1890s Populism  -otherwise known as "home grown
American Socialism."
 
King's Socialism, to the extent that this is an accurate designation,  was
independent and, for that time, a Left oriented version of what is now  known
as Radical Centrism. So it seems to me.
 
I have been completely amazed throughout my research into the life of
one of the greatest men of American history.
 
________
Billy Rojas
2005
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://radicalcentrism.com/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20051031/0e8d418d/attachment-0001.html