 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > MLK Jr. | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/17/2011 12:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/19/2011 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I think MLK's speech "beyond vietnam" has some connections to the political/economic topics that have been prevalent here lately.
Beyond Vietnam said...
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Beyond Vietnam said...
But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men—for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
Beyond Vietnam said...
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
Beyond Vietnam said...
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
The type of reactionary violence towards aggressors that Jeff, Asher, and Tom seem to accept is rejected out of hand by MLK. MLK seems to support the type of 'socialistic' programs that you guys seem to find evil, grounded in jealousy and envy. Tom, MLK seems to represent the political opposite of you, insofar as you go along with Jeff and Asher.
What, exactly, is to be admired about a pacifist who condemned reactionary violence (which you find acceptable), who fought for social equality by promoting government programs that attempted to reversed government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty?Post Edited (Daniel M) : 1/19/2011 9:16:21 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/19/2011 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Tom:So I can't admire him as a great American and human being?
Daniel: Of course you can. I'm simply wondering why. His accomplishments/dream are explicitly linked to his ideas of pacifism. IE, if you find the work he did to be a good thing, then you find pacifism to be a good thing, because pacifism is what he did. There's no way to slice his ideas about pacifism from his ideas/accomplishments in the realm of civil rights, politics, etc.
If you admire pacifism, then that's perfectly okay to me. There just seems to be a conceptualization of pacifism on this board that is understood to be theologically sloppy. And praxeologically impractical/irresponsible. And I don't think anyone can call MLK either impractical or irresponsible in relation to his pacifist action against injustice.
Tom: What makes you think I support "government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty"?
Daniel: I'm not suggesting that you, or anyone else, supports those things, simply that a libertarian view cannot support governmental action in an attempt to right those wrongs. MLK was working for government programs to help the poor, equalize the work force, remove segregation. Thus, in a very real way the libertarian view is opposed to what MLK was fighting for. (Not that the libertarian is racist, simply that the libertarian cannot support government action against racism or poverty). | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that Dr. King was simply prophetically applying the Kingdom of God to the American context and at the same time, calling the American system (including it's government) to it's own stated ideals. (All people are created equal, equal availability of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, promotion of the "common good", etc)
Was he doing any more or less than this?
What I hear Daniel saying is that the pacifism and "socialist" perspective evidenced by Dr. King was integrally related to his view of the Kingdom of God and social transformation. Am I right on that, Daniel?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/19/2011 3:06:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's look at it this way. I'm sure that Dr. King would have expected the government to use the means at their disposal to ENFORCE the protection of the liberties and provision for all that he wanted, right? That means that Dr. King probably would have expected POLICE OFFICERS and MILITARY FORCES to use their resources of "force" to do that, yes? Now, he wouldn't want any police brutality or abuse (obiviously), but he wouldn't have had a problem with government-sanctioned, compassionate civil servants rightly using their authority and (if needed) force against violation of just, humane law.
You would agree with this, right, Daniel?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/19/2011 4:45:23 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/19/2011 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/19/2011 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: ...if you find the work he did to be a good thing, then you find pacifism to be a good thing...
Tom: But I DO find pacifism to be a good thing. It was, I think, absolutely necessary to his accomplishments, and I think it is good and necessary to accomplishing many things, probably most things. But it doesn't work so good for a few things, say, catching bad guys and throwing them in jail and so protecting the public from such people, or other things entailed in the State's being able to fulfill its God-given responsibility of enforcing law and maintaining order. In other words, I don't absolutize non-violence and so condemn every conceivable instance of violence or force. So strictly speaking I'm not a pacifist, but that doesn't mean I think MLK would have been better off using force. His accomplishments were best and justly won via non-violence. In other words, non-pacifists don't absolutize violence the way pacifists absolutize non-violence. That's why I can admire MLK as an amazing person AND also think there is in the world SOME legitimate use for force.
--------------
Tom: What makes you think I support "government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty"?
Daniel: I'm not suggesting that you, or anyone else, supports those things, simply that a libertarian view cannot support governmental action in an attempt to right those wrongs. MLK was working for government programs to help the poor, equalize the work force, remove segregation. Thus, in a very real way the libertarian view is opposed to what MLK was fighting for. (Not that the libertarian is racist, simply that the libertarian cannot support government action against racism or poverty).
Tom: I'm not understanding something Daniel. I understood you to think that I (with Jeff and Asher) support "government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty." But by "government sanctioned segregation" I understand "government ENFORCED segregation" in which case I completely reject any insistence on the government's part to insist upon segregation. I'm not sure what "government sanctioned generational poverty" quite means, but it sounds like "government enforced generational poverty," i.e., the government enacting policies that seek to keep children of poor people as poor or pooer than their parents. Why would you think any of us supports policies that insist or even entail such oppression or class abuse? It sounds like you just EQUATE libertarian economics with racism and abuse of the poor. But you must know that many others equate liberal Democratic economics (or Socialism) with racism and abuse of the poor.
But to be honest, I really do come up short when it comes to policitcal/economic debate. So I'll apologize for misunderstanding and mis-stating things ahead of time!
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 1/19/2011 8:56:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/20/2011 11:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
I got some responses and some time off class tomorrow  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2011 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/21/2011 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
First, a clarification. My initial statement:
What, exactly, is to be admired about a pacifist who condemned reactionary violence (which you find acceptable), who fought for social equality by promoting government programs that attempted to reversed government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty?
Toms response/question:
I'm not understanding something Daniel. I understood you to think that I (with Jeff and Asher) support "government sanctioned segregation and generational poverty." But by "government sanctioned segregation" I understand "government ENFORCED segregation" in which case I completely reject any insistence on the government's part to insist upon segregation. I'm not sure what "government sanctioned generational poverty" quite means, but it sounds like "government enforced generational poverty," i.e., the government enacting policies that seek to keep children of poor people as poor or pooer than their parents. Why would you think any of us supports policies that insist or even entail such oppression or class abuse? It sounds like you just EQUATE libertarian economics with racism and abuse of the poor.
Now, just to be clear: I'm certainly not equating libertarian politics (although it's certainly more than just economics, much like capitalism is much more than private ownership of the means of production) with racism and abuse of the poor. I'm suggesting that libertarian politics must stand in opposition to Dr. King. Not because they are racists, but because they can't support a government that uses tax dollars to support and fund programs that attempt to reverse the cultural damage that racism caused. Just like the Libertarian cries injustice at welfare, so too the Libertarian cries injustice when state money is put to work in an attempt to promote racial equality which might take the form of welfare. IOW the Libertarian is always already opposed to a government providing aid to the minority groups that the majority exploit and abuse, whether that minority be derived from monetary or racial criteria.
Hey One Love,
OL: What I hear Daniel saying is that the pacifism and "socialist" perspective evidenced by Dr. King was integrally related to his view of the Kingdom of God and social transformation. Am I right on that, Daniel?
Daniel: As I understand Dr. King, he saw that pacifism and collectivist responsibility were essential aspects of the Kingdom of God. By collectivist responsibility I mean that the whole of a nation is responsible for the treatment of the poor, exploited, abused, etc. If that means "socialist perspective" then sure.
OL: I'm sure that Dr. King would have expected the government to use the means at their disposal to ENFORCE the protection of the liberties and provision for all that he wanted, right? That means that Dr. King probably would have expected POLICE OFFICERS and MILITARY FORCES to use their resources of "force" to do that, yes? Now, he wouldn't want any police brutality or abuse (obiviously), but he wouldn't have had a problem with government-sanctioned, compassionate civil servants rightly using their authority and (if needed) force against violation of just, humane law.
Daniel: I'm pretty sure he would have some serious problems with the notion. Pacifism wasn't a tactic for civil rights explicitly, it was how he understood any political action to be actualized. To use the language of "enforcement" (however, I don't think this is how it SHOULD be schematized, or how Dr. King thought of it) I think the logic would be something along the lines of: non-violence, or non-coercion, is the ONLY acceptable means of "enforcing" rights, or reacting to injustice of any sort. The Speech "Beyond Vietnam" is Dr. King criticizing the government for using violent means to achieve it's goals.
So no, I do not think that Dr. King would support Police action or military action in order to enforce laws. I think, and this is me putting words in his mouth, that he would claim that non-violence is the moral obligation of the oppressed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2011 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: Not because they [libertarians] are racists, but because they can't support a government that uses tax dollars to support and fund programs that attempt to reverse the cultural damage that racism caused.
Tom: I’m gonna let Asher and Jeff step in and disentangle the issues. I guess I’m not seeing the problem—or maybe I’m not a straight-up libertarian (politically speaking), but here’s the thing—I don’t mind tax dollars being used to reverse the cultural damage that racism caused WITHIN REASON. What I think people get upset with is a system of welfare that enables poverty, rewards irresponsibility, and encourages people to depend upon government to do all the repairing when much of the repair people require asks them to avail themselves of opportunities to better themselves.
Daniel: Just like the Libertarian cries injustice at welfare, so too the Libertarian cries injustice when state money is put to work in an attempt to promote racial equality which might take the form of welfare.
Tom: I’m just interested (this might be a bit off the subject), but let me ask you, Daniel: What has the welfare system done to promote racial equality? I mean, we’ve had 60 years of mounting welfare now. That should be enough to judge the system’s power to promote racial equality and bring people together. How has the system done in this regard?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2011 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Daniel1: I'm pretty sure he would have some serious problems with the notion. Pacifism wasn't a tactic for civil rights explicitly, it was how he understood any political action to be actualized. To use the language of "enforcement" (however, I don't think this is how it SHOULD be schematized, or how Dr. King thought of it) I think the logic would be something along the lines of: non-violence, or non-coercion, is the ONLY acceptable means of "enforcing" rights, or reacting to injustice of any sort. The Speech "Beyond Vietnam" is Dr. King criticizing the government for using violent means to achieve it's goals.
Daniel2: Now, just to be clear: I'm certainly not equating libertarian politics (although it's certainly more than just economics, much like capitalism is much more than private ownership of the means of production) with racism and abuse of the poor. I'm suggesting that libertarian politics must stand in opposition to Dr. King. Not because they are racists, but because they can't support a government that uses tax dollars to support and fund programs that attempt to reverse the cultural damage that racism caused.
Jeff: It sounds to me that what you're trying to say is that anyone that advocates compulsory taxation is automatically anti-MLK. But that's virtually everyone on this board if I understand them correctly.
Daniel: Just like the Libertarian cries injustice at welfare, so too the Libertarian cries injustice when state money is put to work in an attempt to promote racial equality which might take the form of welfare. IOW the Libertarian is always already opposed to a government providing aid to the minority groups that the majority exploit and abuse, whether that minority be derived from monetary or racial criteria.
Jeff: You misunderstand what Libertarians believe the bottom line is. Libertarians honestly believe that libertarianism results in the greatest civility attainable by secular government. They don't believe that wealth redistribution is increasing civility. They believe it is decreasing civility relative to governing in terms of justice as conceived of in terms of the golden rule. The golden rule can't get me, best I can tell, to purely race-based decisions. That's the point. All this stuff about something being wrong because it's genocide is something that can't be derived from the golden rule as I understand it. The analogies that apply to the golden rule normativity are those that deal with attributes that have one or more practical implications. I can't conceive of even one such morally-normative implication derived from mere skin color, etc--such that I could say, e.g., "look, that person has light skin, therefore I ought to (or ought NOT to) _______." See my point?
Consequently, if capital punishment is ever right for any kind of crime, and the next 50 just capital punishments would, to fulfill God's obligation for the State, be done on the last 50 Mohicans alive on earth, it would be no wrong to kill the last Mohican that way. I don't see how we could argue it was in terms of the grounds for justice that serve as grounds for the golden rule.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 1/21/2011 4:32:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|