Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to reflect on Martin Luther King

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time to reflect on Martin Luther King

    As Martin Luther King day has passed it is time to reflect on the significant issues that are generally ignored.

    Very little is made today of the fact that Martin Luther King was a religious figure. That is not surprising considering how much less important religion has become in the lives of Americans since the 60s.

    For the majority of popular intellectuals the religious nature of American culture is almost an embarrassment. Obama summed up this attitude with his clinger comments. While not as hostile as many mainstream intellectuals Obama's comments were even more divisive. They were clearly directed at one segment of the Religious community an ignored the religious community that Martin Luther King represents.

    The religious community Martin Luther King represented was a segregated community. Not by his choice but by the the realities of the time. I think he would of welcomed anyone into that community who embraced the underlying principle of his movement which was that civil rights are God given rights. Such an attitude is very much at odds with the divisive Obama statement on clingers. For the majority of the establishment that Obama represented there is no God to grant rights thus all rights must be granted and protected by government.

    That Obama and his party was at odds with the community that Martin Luther King represented is made clear by one recent vote. That would be proposition 8 in California in which the majority of MLK's community voted against Obama's position.

    The question becomes what are God given rights. Clearly the American tradition is that they are equality under the law not the fine print of the law. Like the framers of the constitution Martin Luther King seems to believe it was the individual not the collectives rights that needed protecting. The irony is that religion is about the collective.

    Religion in general is about suppressing individual selection or fast life history in favor of group selection or a slow life history. It is a cultural adaptation that allows for costly signaling and self sacrifice. It promotes reproductive strategies that are at odds with the interests of the individual to promote collective interests. Attitudes very much at odds with the dominant emerging religion of equity, diversity and inclusion.

    As all political movements are want to do MKL's message is full of internal contradictions. To insure the rights of individuals requires that the collective enforce those rights. We are still debating what is Caesar's and what is God's. What we should not be debating is that with the decline of religion individual selection is threatening social stability. Especially in minority communities.

    What seems evident is that we lack the philosophical sophistication to replace the old morality with something workable. I see the main obstacle as intellectual arrogance. We have adopted an adolescent attitude towards morality at least in part as a hangover from youth culture.




    We hunt the hunters

  • #2
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    As Martin Luther King day has passed it is time to reflect on the significant issues that are generally ignored.

    Very little is made today of the fact that Martin Luther King was a religious figure. That is not surprising considering how much less important religion has become in the lives of Americans since the 60s.

    For the majority of popular intellectuals the religious nature of American culture is almost an embarrassment. Obama summed up this attitude with his clinger comments. While not as hostile as many mainstream intellectuals Obama's comments were even more divisive. They were clearly directed at one segment of the Religious community an ignored the religious community that Martin Luther King represents.

    The religious community Martin Luther King represented was a segregated community. Not by his choice but by the the realities of the time. I think he would of welcomed anyone into that community who embraced the underlying principle of his movement which was that civil rights are God given rights. Such an attitude is very much at odds with the divisive Obama statement on clingers. For the majority of the establishment that Obama represented there is no God to grant rights thus all rights must be granted and protected by government.

    That Obama and his party was at odds with the community that Martin Luther King represented is made clear by one recent vote. That would be proposition 8 in California in which the majority of MLK's community voted against Obama's position.

    The question becomes what are God given rights. Clearly the American tradition is that they are equality under the law not the fine print of the law. Like the framers of the constitution Martin Luther King seems to believe it was the individual not the collectives rights that needed protecting. The irony is that religion is about the collective.

    Religion in general is about suppressing individual selection or fast life history in favor of group selection or a slow life history. It is a cultural adaptation that allows for costly signaling and self sacrifice. It promotes reproductive strategies that are at odds with the interests of the individual to promote collective interests. Attitudes very much at odds with the dominant emerging religion of equity, diversity and inclusion.

    As all political movements are want to do MKL's message is full of internal contradictions. To insure the rights of individuals requires that the collective enforce those rights. We are still debating what is Caesar's and what is God's. What we should not be debating is that with the decline of religion individual selection is threatening social stability. Especially in minority communities.

    What seems evident is that we lack the philosophical sophistication to replace the old morality with something workable. I see the main obstacle as intellectual arrogance. We have adopted an adolescent attitude towards morality at least in part as a hangover from youth culture.



    Nice to see people using MLK for attacking Obama. His comments were about the BITTER people who clinger to their guns and religious. This does not mean that all religious (or 2A) people are bitter.

    And yes, MLK was an example of a religious person who was not bitter. But let's not forget that at the time he was fighting for racial equality, MLK was often opposed by other religious and bitter people.

    https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-...s-and-atheists

    Even though he was educated in evangelical seminaries, the author of The Jesus I Never Knew regrets his “fundamentalist” upbringing in the early 1960s, in which his pastor referred to Rev. Martin Luther King as “Martin Lucifer Coon.”
    Last edited by pamak; 21 Jan 20, 19:27.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      Nice to see people using MLK for attacking Obama. His comments were about the BITTER people who clinger to their guns and religious. This does not mean that all religious (or 2A) people are bitter.

      And yes, MLK was an example of a religious person who was not bitter. But let's not forget that at the time he was fighting for racial equality, MLK was often opposed by other religious and bitter people.

      https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-...s-and-atheists

      Even though he was educated in evangelical seminaries, the author of The Jesus I Never Knew regrets his “fundamentalist” upbringing in the early 1960s, in which his pastor referred to Rev. Martin Luther King as “Martin Lucifer Coon.”
      You have no idea what I'm talking about do you.

      I wasn't attacking Obama I was attacking the the intellectual community from which he sprung and by whom he was indoctrinated. That said I'm happy to discuss Obama . I found Obama especially during his formative years to be a very confused young man. That confusion stems from having been abandoned by his father and having a white mother who appears to have been somewhat unstable. He was an easy target for the kind of shallow intellectuals who push multiculturalism and systemic colonialism. The important thing to remember is that Obama's life experiences were not those of the average black American. His claim to blackness is in someways cultural appropriation because it wasn't how he was acculturated.

      Describing the kind of systemic racism that those acculturated in the generation coming of age in the south during the 60s as having grown out of bitterness is odd. Certainly there was bitterness in the culture as a result of losing the Civil War but statements similar to Martin Lucifer Coon would have been common long before the Civil War. You have to remember that during the 60s people using that kind of language still delusionally thought they were going to win.

      The above errors in understanding human nature leads us to why it is important to better understand the role of religion in society. Too often it is assumed that that role is individual morality. If that were the case then the core teachings of early follows of most religions would not be so routinely ignored by the institutional religions. Religions are adaptive and like all organisms their "purpose" is fitness. Not individual fitness but group fitness. I'm going to let you consider the implications and how the decline of religiosity has negatively effected minority communities.

      Before I go I want to touch on this prevailing idea that Trump supporters are bitter. Here is something we can agree on. They are indeed bitter. The question is why.

      A lot of that bitterness stems from having been abandoned by the Democratic party and politicians in general. The left when it was the political voice of labor and not identity politics would have attracted many of the same voters Trump attracted. The concepts of systemic colonialism that is applied to minorities could just as easily be applied to the forgotten American worker. The interior of the U.S. is treated by the coastal elites very much as the colonial powers treated their colonies. The language is even similar. Instead of being called savages or similar they are called clingers and deplorables. There is little doubt they have been exploited by the corporatists and globalists that the Democratic party has embraced. The same types of corporatists and globalists that ran the European colonies.

      We are yet to see if Obama was right and that there is no alternative to leading from behind and accepting the brave new world of corporatism and globalism. Personally I think he was extremely naive.

      I don't accept the Trump populist message that we can have security without paying a high economic price. Most of what Trump has done is of short term benefit. Deregulation and pumping the middle class with cash are not solutions. They do however give us time. Time to get through the period of instability in which deterrents are restored. On this score Trump has proven to be right. Economic carrots and sticks backed up with an umpredicable military seems to be working.

      One of the key aspects of security is a strong manufacturing base. The simply arithmetic of profits may be an important component of but is not the only way to measure success. It is likely that over the short to mid run returning manufacturing to the U.S. will be costly to the average consumer. In addition to tariffs higher prices for manufactured goods can be expected. The alternative however was to allow the Chinese currency to dominated international trade. If that were to happen the U.S. would lose it's most important tool that it has had in maintaining hegemony since the end of WWII.
      You don't have to be a patriot to understand that the U.S. losing hegemony is similar to the events that lead up to WWI when British hegemony was declining. Just as Germany was starting to enter the colonial game at that time China is today. In some ways it isn't about good guys and bad guys it's about managing change and instability. Until Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada step up their game U.S. hegemony is simply preferable to Chinese hegemony. You can't really blame Obama or the coastal elites from failing to understand this situation, our educational system is woefully inadequate and dominated by empathetic not systemitizing minds.

      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        (…) For the majority of the establishment that Obama represented there is no God to grant rights thus all rights must be granted and protected by government.
        That is supported by history, yes.

        God apparently waited to "grant" rights untill there was earthly government around, willing and able to protect them.

        Even today that seems to be the case, given the unequal distribution of those "rights" globally.
        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

        Comment


        • #5
          I've often been given the impression that religion in the US is OK to take the Bible literally on the creation story, or killing homosexuals, but not on feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, or tending the sick.

          But then again, I'm 3000 miles away, what do I know ?
          Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't think there are "rights" in the Bible, but I'm far from an expert.

            The "God given" rights originated in the US constitution I think, before that there were no "rights" in the Americas that I know of, maybe the old European property rights.


            But those were entirely man-made and enforced too, not in any way "God given", although they were quite often made out to be.

            Edit, it's worse apparently, neither the US constitution, the Bill or Rights nor their Declaration of Independence mentions God.

            just a "Creator" - today that would be called "political correctness" here, bloody liberal founders

            ... The statement in the Declaration of Independence that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is the cornerstone of the argument for God-language in government.
            (…) those who truly value freedom should realize that the defense of rights belongs with their real source: rational, compassionate, engaged, and vigilant human beings.
            https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ights-come-god
            Last edited by Snowygerry; 22 Jan 20, 08:17.
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by the ace View Post
              I've often been given the impression that religion in the US is OK to take the Bible literally on the creation story, or killing homosexuals, but not on feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, or tending the sick.

              But then again, I'm 3000 miles away, what do I know ?
              Then you've been given the wrong impression all of this time. Embarrassingly so.
              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by the ace View Post
                I've often been given the impression that religion in the US is OK to take the Bible literally on the creation story, or killing homosexuals, but not on feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, or tending the sick.

                But then again, I'm 3000 miles away, what do I know ?
                Religious charities tend to have been replaced by secular institutions. Despite what many people may think the war on poverty has more or less been won making religious charities in some cases obsolete. I will tell you a story from my own experience of how this happened.

                I grew up in a small community with one hospital. It was a county hospital in the middle of no where. The hospital was constructed with county funds but on the same grounds a privately funded convent was built that provided a substantial portion of the nursing staff for free. The only condition imposed on the county by the nuns was a small chapel. Over time in keeping with the general decline of religiosity the supply of nuns declined and were replaced by paid staff. At the same time federal funds for rural hospitals greatly increased. The irony in this story is that the Catholics who were paying for free services represented a relatively poor demographic. I have little doubt that the supply of nuns is inversely proportional to luxus.

                Religiosity can be thought of as a biological response to stress in the environment. It is probably no coincidence that celibacy is a Dark Age invention. Or that reformation took place when economic conditions were improving. The black death also played a role. Counter to common understanding downward mobility in terms of replacement of serfs who died disproportionately was the demographic reality across Europe. Making the middle class genetically the old gentry not upwardly mobile poor.

                People like Richard Dawkins and his selfish genes present a gross oversimplification of social dynamics at least in part because of the intellectual vacuousness of people like Marx. Group selection is so obvious but it is at odds with the way people want to see the world. For centuries religiosity keep dysgenics at bay. It did so in much kinder and gentler way than the eugenics that dominated socialist thinking in the early twentieth century.

                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here is something to chew on.

                  Freewill is a religious concept that reduces anti social behaviour by constricting individual choice. Freedom becomes the opposite of free by imposing responsibility impossible in the absence of freewill.

                  As I have stated before we do not have the philosophical sophistication to construct a morality capable of dealing with the realities of civilization. Are brightest minds are busy deconstructing the evolved mechanisms that civilization is dependent on. At the same time general intelligence is unsurprisingly declining. Ironically the religion of popular science is doing exactly what it accuses religion of doing raising humans above and humanity outside evolutionary reality.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                    You have no idea what I'm talking about do you.

                    I wasn't attacking Obama I was attacking the the intellectual community from which he sprung and by whom he was indoctrinated. That said I'm happy to discuss Obama . I found Obama especially during his formative years to be a very confused young man. That confusion stems from having been abandoned by his father and having a white mother who appears to have been somewhat unstable. He was an easy target for the kind of shallow intellectuals who push multiculturalism and systemic colonialism. The important thing to remember is that Obama's life experiences were not those of the average black American. His claim to blackness is in someways cultural appropriation because it wasn't how he was acculturated.

                    Describing the kind of systemic racism that those acculturated in the generation coming of age in the south during the 60s as having grown out of bitterness is odd. Certainly there was bitterness in the culture as a result of losing the Civil War but statements similar to Martin Lucifer Coon would have been common long before the Civil War. You have to remember that during the 60s people using that kind of language still delusionally thought they were going to win.

                    The above errors in understanding human nature leads us to why it is important to better understand the role of religion in society. Too often it is assumed that that role is individual morality. If that were the case then the core teachings of early follows of most religions would not be so routinely ignored by the institutional religions. Religions are adaptive and like all organisms their "purpose" is fitness. Not individual fitness but group fitness. I'm going to let you consider the implications and how the decline of religiosity has negatively effected minority communities.

                    Before I go I want to touch on this prevailing idea that Trump supporters are bitter. Here is something we can agree on. They are indeed bitter. The question is why.

                    A lot of that bitterness stems from having been abandoned by the Democratic party and politicians in general. The left when it was the political voice of labor and not identity politics would have attracted many of the same voters Trump attracted. The concepts of systemic colonialism that is applied to minorities could just as easily be applied to the forgotten American worker. The interior of the U.S. is treated by the coastal elites very much as the colonial powers treated their colonies. The language is even similar. Instead of being called savages or similar they are called clingers and deplorables. There is little doubt they have been exploited by the corporatists and globalists that the Democratic party has embraced. The same types of corporatists and globalists that ran the European colonies.

                    We are yet to see if Obama was right and that there is no alternative to leading from behind and accepting the brave new world of corporatism and globalism. Personally I think he was extremely naive.

                    I don't accept the Trump populist message that we can have security without paying a high economic price. Most of what Trump has done is of short term benefit. Deregulation and pumping the middle class with cash are not solutions. They do however give us time. Time to get through the period of instability in which deterrents are restored. On this score Trump has proven to be right. Economic carrots and sticks backed up with an umpredicable military seems to be working.

                    One of the key aspects of security is a strong manufacturing base. The simply arithmetic of profits may be an important component of but is not the only way to measure success. It is likely that over the short to mid run returning manufacturing to the U.S. will be costly to the average consumer. In addition to tariffs higher prices for manufactured goods can be expected. The alternative however was to allow the Chinese currency to dominated international trade. If that were to happen the U.S. would lose it's most important tool that it has had in maintaining hegemony since the end of WWII.
                    You don't have to be a patriot to understand that the U.S. losing hegemony is similar to the events that lead up to WWI when British hegemony was declining. Just as Germany was starting to enter the colonial game at that time China is today. In some ways it isn't about good guys and bad guys it's about managing change and instability. Until Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada step up their game U.S. hegemony is simply preferable to Chinese hegemony. You can't really blame Obama or the coastal elites from failing to understand this situation, our educational system is woefully inadequate and dominated by empathetic not systemitizing minds.
                    So, a successful Black person commits "cultural appropriation" because he studied and refused to become the stereotype of the Black person you have in your mind. Nice logic...

                    I can find many confused white kids with families. Bush was one of them. And I can find many confused white religious women who chose to tolerate domestic abuse by drunk husbands or misery without daring to get a divorce for fear of what their community will say. While family separation, divorce and demographic backgrounds can create more obstacles, (and thus more chances of failing to overcome them) and lead more people (proportionally) to criminality, pointing at them to explain a person's failure or success is as much simplistic as trying to blame the male sex for crime.


                    Anyway, the point of the article still does not make sense since it tries to present all religious people with MLK's virtues and contrast them to intellectuals like Obama. As I posted, there were religious whites who were calling MLK "Martin Lucifer Coon." And there were many religious whites who in the name of some form of "security" were telling King to be more patient instead of protesting.

                    https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Article...irmingham.html
                    .


                    "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"
                    ...


                    First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."




                    So, if there is any attempt of cultural appropriation here, it is that of those religious whites who try now to associate their culture to that of MLK simply because of religion.


                    p.s. MLK was not exactly in his private family life the person that religious people would expect him to be
                    Last edited by pamak; 22 Jan 20, 15:26.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      So, a successful Black person commits "cultural appropriation" because he studied and refused to become the stereotype of the Black person you have in your mind. Nice logic...

                      I can find many confused white kids with families. Bush was one of them. And I can find many confused white religious women who chose to tolerate domestic abuse by drunk husbands or misery without daring to get a divorce for fear of what their community will say. While family separation, divorce and demographic backgrounds can create more obstacles, (and thus more chances of failing to overcome them) and lead more people (proportionally) to criminality, pointing at them to explain a person's failure or success is as much simplistic as trying to blame the male sex for crime.


                      Anyway, the point of the article still does not make sense since it tries to present all religious people with MLK's virtues and contrast them to intellectuals like Obama. As I posted, there were religious whites who were calling MLK "Martin Lucifer Coon." And there were many religious whites who in the name of some form of "security" were telling King to be more patient instead of protesting.

                      https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Article...irmingham.html
                      .


                      "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"
                      ...


                      First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."




                      So, if there is any attempt of cultural appropriation here, it is that of those religious whites who try now to associate their culture to that of MLK simply because of religion.


                      p.s. MLK was not exactly in his private family life the person that religio
                      us people would expect him to be


                      true enough, there.....
                      his strength is the constant message that America could , and to a great extent did, integrate peaCEFULLY - without the' trapped BlaCK COLONY' mentality of a Bobby Seale or Eldridge cleaver- or their equivalents in the light tan/pink community.
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                        us people would expect him to be[/B]


                        true enough, there.....
                        his strength is the constant message that America could , and to a great extent did, integrate peaCEFULLY - without the' trapped BlaCK COLONY' mentality of a Bobby Seale or Eldridge cleaver- or their equivalents in the light tan/pink community.
                        We should still remember that despite MLK's non violence objective (which was not always accomplished...see last section of this post) he still engaged in civil disobedience and committed technically "illegal actions" (including protesting without permits) which for many conservatives was enough to fear that he promoted lawlessness.

                        The quote above was from the Birmingham jail after

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter...irmingham_Jail

                        On April 10, Circuit Judge W. A. Jenkins issued a blanket injunction against "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing." Leaders of the campaign announced they would disobey the ruling.[1] On April 12, King was roughly arrested with SCLC activist Ralph Abernathy, ACMHR and SCLC official Fred Shuttlesworth, and other marchers, while thousands of African Americans dressed for Good Friday looked on.[2]

                        Also, as it happens in some demonstrations, many people with different agendas participate and in the case of the Black protests we had also cases of looting and violence. Nobody can have 100% control of any movement that takes the fight to the streets and not to some courtroom.

                        https://features.apmreports.org/arw/king/c1.html

                        The marchers paraded down Beale Street, the famed Memphis thoroughfare where musician W.C. Handy pioneered the blues. King was at the head of the column. Then, a number of young African Americans began breaking storefront windows. James Lawson was leading the march with King. When they turned onto Main, Lawson says, they saw "lengths of police in riot gear across the street."

                        Remembering a violent crackdown by Memphis police during a February protest march, Lawson feared the police would attack again. He recalls telling King, "You must leave. They are going to break up the march and go after you more than anyone." A reluctant King was led away. The marchers turned around. Then, police attacked with tear gas and clubs. Peaceful marchers were caught up in the same violence as youthful looters.


                        In short, activism is not and cannot be sterilized. There will be controversial stances, including willingness to violate laws. And violence from some rogue elements within the activists will also be present even when the use of such violence is clearly rejected by leaders like MLK and their followers.
                        Last edited by pamak; 22 Jan 20, 16:48.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X