Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #45

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #44

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #39

---

I'm not comparing the two men, I am questioning bringing God into the debate to bolster personal views. Much of what is being discussed has been known for years. Suggesting the blame lies with God for MLK's flaws is a little wacky imo. I also have no problem what-so-ever being able to see the dishonest, hypocritical and possibly evil behavior coming from a man who did good deeds as well. I just disagree we should ignore it.

I don't know God uses anyone to a greater or lesser extent, that's not a judgment call I think we can honestly make.

---

I think I may have been the "guilty party" bringing God into the conversation by saying "I just re-read the "I have a dream" speech on Rev's thread (Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" Speech) and it occurred to me that God sometimes uses very flawed vessels for His purposes."
Re-reading it, it still seems pretty innocuous to me. I think I'm missing the point?

---

Clearly Sanguine, I feel that I'm missing the point as well.

But I don't think it's your fault that God was brought into the conversation. I opened that door from the very beginning of this conversation as an explanation for the discrepancy between this man's flawed personal life and his noteworthy civil rights achievements.

Justme, apparently you feel that MLK's flaws far outweigh any good that he accomplished and would rather not include God in his life.

But it simply isn't accurate to say I was blaming God for MLK's flaws.
I've suggested as Sanguine has stated above, that miraculously, in spite of his flaws, God accomplished something great through him.

Evidently that is a minority opinion on this list.

---

Palinista,
I think you hear correctly.
For me, the accumulation of all these negatives does not dwarf the obvious positive that this man had America's attention for a brief time and he delivered some incredibly inspiring speeches that were influential in bringing about the change that was badly needed.
I also attribute King's visonary insight to the work of God in his life. I think that observation is more than most people here on this list can tolerate, which mystifies me. But work calls me away from my cmputer terminal now, so let that suffice for the moment.
TM

Here's my brutal thoguhts on King.
James Earl Ray shot the wrong guy that day in Memphis. Jesse Jerkson was standing right there.

"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #47

---

Palinista,
I think you hear correctly.
For me, the accumulation of all these negatives does not dwarf the obvious positive that this man had America's attention for a brief time and he delivered some incredibly inspiring speeches that were influential in bringing about the change that was badly needed.
I also attribute King's visonary insight to the work of God in his life. I think that observation is more than most people here on this list can tolerate, which mystifies me. But work calls me away from my cmputer terminal now, so let that suffice for the moment.
TM

---

If I were guessing, and I'm hoping y'all tell me if you agree or not, the fact that King, a patently unfit person, has become such an icon and has come to represent not only the civil rights movement, but all of the damage wrought by the Great Society movement, and for someone who is looking at the man and the image, and the jarring contradiction, they respond very negatively to anything they perceive as buying into the false image. How did I do?

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #48

---

Here's my brutal thoguhts on King.
James Earl Ray shot the wrong guy that day in Memphis. Jesse Jerkson was standing right there.

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #50

---

If I were guessing, and I'm hoping y'all tell me if you agree or not, the fact that King, a patently unfit person, has become such an icon and has come to represent not only the civil rights movement, but all of the damage wrought by the Great Society movement, and for someone who is looking at the man and the image, and the jarring contradiction, they respond very negatively to anything they perceive as buying into the false image. How did I do?

---

You may have noticed my posting absence for the past several weeks. Some have contacted me on PM to make sure I was alright, to inquire if something was wrong. I'm fine. To put it bluntly, I got plain disgusted with the posting on this specific thread and I decided to withdraw until I could identify what was bothering me and formulate a reply.

My general observation is that people will believe what they're inclined to believe. I don't entertain any delusions that I will re-make deeply formed opinions with a posting here, but the *complete* slander of MLK on this thread is based on selective research and perhaps worse.

1. First I researched the Highland Folk School. So it's a "Communist Training School"? according to that flyer posted by freeperjohn. The flyer shows MLK sitting with known communists. A 1940 FBI investigation of the HFS came up empty. The accusatory letters sent to the FBI by concerned citizens are part of the on line record. They're humorous and remind me of Gladys Kravitz reporting her gossip. The picture in the flyer is real but the context is not. The school was teaching nonviolent activism, social resistance and union activism. Those teachings may scare conservatives but these are not communist doctrines. Would a communist be attracted to such? Evidently they were. Does that make MLK a communist? There's more....

2. I then googled MLK and Communism. Evidently an email has been circulating since 2003 with much of the MLK "dirt" presented by freeperjohn here.
Snopes popped up first. Have a look at it. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp Snopes deals with the FBI investigation and their planting of stories in newspapers to intimidate MLK. Statements are here about the former communists who affiliated with MLK and their repudiation of communism.

Some of the crap on MLK is true, but some isn't. Snopes presents context and balances the accusations with the findings. The idea that King scooped his "I Have a Dream" speech from Archibald Carey is dealt with and found "overblown". At the end is a piece by Ralph Abernathy who shares quite honestly about the accusations that King had a woman problem. It's true, King had a woman problem, but no violence.

3. Wiki deals with MLK's life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
It is a fair treatment of the man, sharing his strengths and exposing his weaknesses in a balanced manner.

4. What inclined me to withdraw from posting here was how hating MLK seemed to be an approved sport here. The conviction that MLK was a national disgrace and nothing more, still concerns me deeply.

5. There isn't a name for it yet, not that I know of, but there really should be. What happened to MLK on this thread, happened to Thomas Jefferson with his slave owning and Sally Hemings. It's the trashing of the Constitution because did you know, it was only signed by white men? Our style today seems comfortable to trash who/what we disagree with and subsequently dismiss all merit; lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll call it trash-tory

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #54

---

You may have noticed my posting absence for the past several weeks. Some have contacted me on PM to make sure I was alright, to inquire if something was wrong. I'm fine. To put it bluntly, I got plain disgusted with the posting on this specific thread and I decided to withdraw until I could identify what was bothering me and formulate a reply.

My general observation is that people will believe what they're inclined to believe. I don't entertain any delusions that I will re-make deeply formed opinions with a posting here, but the *complete* slander of MLK on this thread is based on selective research and perhaps worse.

1. First I researched the Highland Folk School. So it's a "Communist Training School"? according to that flyer posted by freeperjohn. The flyer shows MLK sitting with known communists. A 1940 FBI investigation of the HFS came up empty. The accusatory letters sent to the FBI by concerned citizens are part of the on line record. They're humorous and remind me of Gladys Kravitz reporting her gossip. The picture in the flyer is real but the context is not. The school was teaching nonviolent activism, social resistance and union activism. Those teachings may scare conservatives but these are not communist doctrines. Would a communist be attracted to such? Evidently they were. Does that make MLK a communist? There's more....

2. I then googled MLK and Communism. Evidently an email has been circulating since 2003 with much of the MLK "dirt" presented by freeperjohn here.
Snopes popped up first. Have a look at it. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp Snopes deals with the FBI investigation and their planting of stories in newspapers to intimidate MLK. Statements are here about the former communists who affiliated with MLK and their repudiation of communism.

Some of the crap on MLK is true, but some isn't. Snopes presents context and balances the accusations with the findings. The idea that King scooped his "I Have a Dream" speech from Archibald Carey is dealt with and found "overblown". At the end is a piece by Ralph Abernathy who shares quite honestly about the accusations that King had a woman problem. It's true, King had a woman problem, but no violence.

3. Wiki deals with MLK's life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
It is a fair treatment of the man, sharing his strengths and exposing his weaknesses in a balanced manner.

4. What inclined me to withdraw from posting here was how hating MLK seemed to be an approved sport here. The conviction that MLK was a national disgrace and nothing more, still concerns me deeply.

5. There isn't a name for it yet, not that I know of, but there really should be. What happened to MLK on this thread, happened to Thomas Jefferson with his slave owning and Sally Hemings. It's the trashing of the Constitution because did you know, it was only signed by white men? Our style today seems comfortable to trash who/what we disagree with and subsequently dismiss all merit; lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll call it trash-tory

---

TM - yes, I've missed your posts. They are usually very thoughtful, though this one is exceptionally so.

edited: OK, that was a half-assed answer on my part. If we see the plank in our brother's eye, shouldn't we at least point it out?

I also thank you for your thoughtful post, TM.

I speak for myself and apologize to you directly and any others offended for my part in jumping the gun by believing what was presented here, as fact.

I didn't do my homework, you had to do it for me, and I do appreciate that you set the record straight.

Your points are all well taken and I have learned a valuable lesson to be more careful in the future.

Thank you for coming forward and saying what had to be said, TM.

Snopes and wikipedia are not viewed as source of "truth" on almost anything of any substance. Sorry to disappoint anyone hoping that they are. Snopes is an unapologetic leftist sham operation that builds it "credibility" by debunking foolish urban legends and other pop culture style tripe. And of course, everyone knows that anyone can post anything they want in wikipedia. Again, it gains "credibility" by having some solid content on less (or non-) controversial topics, but as far as topics of substance, the best that anyone can say is caveat emptor!

There are scores and scores of articles in the conservative media about the credibility problems with both snopes and wikipedia, it is a good idea to check them out before attempting to build a case using them as source material. JMO.

Zitat

---

Some of the crap on MLK is true, but some isn't.

---

Was Dr. King a Socialist?

He was, I believe, a Socialist in the same vein that Mitt Romney is a Socialist.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #58

---

Snopes and wikipedia are not viewed as source of "truth" on almost anything of any substance. Sorry to disappoint anyone hoping that they are. Snopes is an unapologetic leftist sham operation that builds it "credibility" by debunking foolish urban legends and other pop culture style tripe. And of course, everyone knows that anyone can post anything they want in wikipedia. Again, it gains "credibility" by having some solid content on less (or non-) controversial topics, but as far as topics of substance, the best that anyone can say is caveat emptor!

There are scores and scores of articles in the conservative media about the credibility problems with both snopes and wikipedia, it is a good idea to check them out before attempting to build a case using them as source material. JMO.

---