dagblog - Comments for "The Service, Sacrifice and Faithfulness of MLK Jr."

Peter, the more you post, the

rmrd0000 — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:40:00 +0000

In reply to I recall that a few years ago

Peter, the more you post, the more uninformed you appear.

Here is Martin Luther King Jr. on Marxism

“During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto,” he wrote. “I also read some interpretative works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day.”

Then King listed the three reasons he could never accept Marxism.

“First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God,” he wrote.

Marx’s theory of “dialectical materialism” (and the conjoined theory of “historical materialism”) instead envisioned the human race as a one-dimensional economic creature.

“Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything – force, violence murder, lying – is a justifiable means to the ‘millennial’ end,” he wrote.

The second point, closely related to the first, recognizes that anyone who rejects transcendence and revelation must, by extension, deny any universally binding morality. The world then becomes a patchwork of competing moralities, begging the strong to impose their will upon the weak. King consistently disownedthose who spoke of prevailing in their political cause “by any means necessary.”

“Third, I opposed communism’s political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjection to the state. … And if man’s so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside,” King wrote. “His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted.”

“Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state,” King concluded.

https://acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2018/01/15/3-reasons-martin-luther-king-jr-rejected-communism

The question for Christians who call themselves Evangelicals is why they support a white supremacist who kidnaps children.

Frame your objections to

moat — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:28:48 +0000

In reply to I recall that a few years ago

Frame your objections to specific texts written by him. You are not representing his views correctly.

Only listening and reading can help you at this point.

I recall that a few years ago

Peter — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:22:38 +0000

In reply to You are the one with the

I recall that a few years ago you rejected my comment that King was a Marxist. Dr King was a wise man in many ways and correct about many things but he was also human and dead wrong about socialism. If he had survived he might have come to realize he was naive to believe that socialism could be separated from totalitarian Marxism or that that ideology that despises the religion he loved could produce anything to correct inequality.

Almost daily we are seeing the left's hate for religious people and Christianity grow and it is a mystery to me why so many religious leaders are in bed with these democrat commies.

We were discussing what in

moat — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:49:05 +0000

In reply to You're partly wrong and

We were discussing what in Martin Luther King Jr.' teachings related to your thinking. There is nothing in your reply that corresponds to what I know of that teaching. You avoid the issue of civil inequality altogether.

By the way, it is called the Democratic Party. Look it up while you absorb the links you have been given.

Maybe you won't like your hero any longer after you find out what he actually said.

You're partly wrong and

Peter — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:34:36 +0000

In reply to In the speech I linked to,

You're partly wrong and partly right. Inequality of outcome is a result of many forces not the cause of poverty and inequality of outcome exists even without racism or we wouldn't have so many poor white people. Inequality of opportunity OTOH was a factor along with racism that increased poverty but we have made great strides to increase opportunity for everyone that have resulted in producing the most powerful, wealthy and free western civilization in history.

The democrat party maintained inequality of opportunity in the South but also in the North from after reconstruction until the Civil Rights movement and Act which was supported by a higher percentage of republicans than democrats. FYI the state of Alabama, the heart of Dixie was controlled by the democrat party until 2010 and only one Dixiecrat ever joined the republican party. The republicans should be criticized for not offering better solutions to inequality of opportunity and the degrading welfare dependence offered by the democrats that has kept minorities and others poor. Trump is correcting that mistake and improving opportunity for everyone and that is why we are seeing the lowest unemployment numbers for minorities in history.

The commie democrats have nothing truly progressive to offer so they double down on divisive Marxist identity politics virulent hate and phony charges of racism and victimhood as we have just seen with the Catholic school boys in DC. They have no policy other than disruption. diversion and a demand for submission to authority to sate their hunger for power so they can impose the globalist mandates that serve their agendas.

You are the one with the

rmrd0000 — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:28:13 +0000

In reply to It's too bad you can read

You are the one with the reading comprehension problem

King on capitalism

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/21/11-most-anti-capitalist-quotes-martin-luther-king-jr

In the speech I linked to,

moat — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:38:45 +0000

In reply to It's too bad you can read

In the speech I linked to, the cause of poverty is about inequality and racial division, Those are conditions your team supports and preserves.

We won't have to play Twister to figure out what King thought about capitalism since he spoke directly to the matter.

I could quote the precise passage but it is better appreciated after listening to what comes before.

You haven't been to Europe

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:19:50 +0000

In reply to It's too bad you can read

You haven't been to Europe lately, have you, fella. Redistribition combined with productivity combined with liberal democracy works fine. Having Trunp act like a South American tin horn dictator, as you obliquely note, doesn't.

Again, less pontificating, mire thunking. You're surrounded by intellectual equals or betters here, not your starry-eyed GOP neocon-youth.

It's too bad you can read

Peter — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 03:36:48 +0000

In reply to Can you point to where your

It's too bad you can read what MLK wrote but not comprehend what he said. King made the crucial point that poverty has been part of human existence forever, Most everyone lived in poverty before civilization began and many remained in poverty after it developed. Only when we developed capitalism and industry did we begin to bring masses of people out of poverty even with the abuses, faults and failures along the way. In the last 40 years half of the world population in extreme poverty escaped that terrible state and most of them are in China and India where capitalism replaced socialism as their economic system. There is still much work to be done and many of these people are still poor but they are moving in the right direction.

The socialist left tries to convince people that capitalism and its' winners. are the cause of inequality/poverty but that is false the cause is much older and deeper. Their solutions of redistribution and collectivism have been tried and always failed as seen in Brazil and Venezuela most recently. The earlier failed examples also show that socialism tends to degenerate quickly into murderous tyranny.

Can you point to where your

moat — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:19:08 +0000

In reply to Being in the presence of

Can you point to where your often repeated ideas intersect with those of King?
For instance, he said the following:

The second evil that I want to deal with is the evil of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus it spreads its nagging prehensile tentacles into cities and hamlets and villages all over our nation. Some forty million of our brothers and sisters are poverty stricken, unable to gain the basic necessities of life. And so often we allow them to become invisible because our society’s so affluent that we don’t see the poor. Some of them are Mexican Americans. Some of them are Indians. Some are Puerto Ricans. Some are Appalachian whites. The vast majority are Negroes in proportion to their size in the population … Now there is nothing new about poverty. It’s been with us for years and centuries. What is new at this point though, is that we now have the resources, we now have the skills, we now have the techniques to get rid of poverty. And the question is whether our nation has the will …

How does that fit into your oft repeated diatribe that all moves toward improvements of peoples' lives are the work of Bolshevik slave masters?

And when you get together with your fellow Trumpeteers, do you all start by agreeing with the following observation?

Now they often call this the white backlash … It’s just a new name for an old phenomenon. The fact is that there has never been any single, solid, determined commitment on the part of the vast majority of white Americans to genuine equality for Negroes. There has always been ambivalence … In 1863 the Negro was granted freedom from physical slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given land to make that freedom meaningful. At the same time, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the Midwest and the West, which meant that the nation was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor, while refusing to do it for its black peasants from Africa who were held in slavery two hundred and forty four years. And this is why Frederick Douglass would say that emancipation for the Negro was freedom to hunger, freedom to the winds and rains of heaven, freedom without roofs to cover their heads. It was freedom without bread to eat, without land to cultivate. It was freedom and famine at the same time. And it is a miracle that the Negro has survived.

If so, please tell us where this kind of respect is happening.

Or here is a simpler task. You align yourself with those who have suppressed minority voting since it was possible. Do you acknowledge that has been going on as King did? If not, why and how?

Without some connection to what was actually said and thought, the experience you report sounds more like a stoner at a Blue Oyster Cult concert than a transformation of personal values.