What did Martin Luther King really say?
He didn’t, and wouldn’t, say that there was a moral equivalence between skin color and deviant inclinations.
From CNA with my emphases and comments:
Christian leaders rally against gay activists ‘hijacking’ Martin Luther King legacy
By Kevin J. JonesAtlanta, Ga., Jan 17, 2011 / 02:12 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- On the observance of Martin Luther King Day, African-American leaders noted the slain civil rights figure’s Christian position on cultural issues like abortion and sexual ethics. Illinois religious and political leaders also organized to challenge the “hijacking” of the civil rights movement by homosexual political activists.
Dr. Alveda King, full-time director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life and King’s niece, cited her uncle’s advice columns written for Ebony magazine in 1957 and 1958.
“In advising men and women on questions of personal behavior 50 years ago, Uncle Martin sounded no different than a conservative Christian preacher does now,” she commented. “He was pro-life, pro-abstinence before marriage, and based his views on the unchanging Word of the Bible. Today, Planned Parenthood would condemn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of the ‘religious right’.”
King reported that one of her uncle’s columns concerned a young man who had impregnated his girlfriend and refused to marry her, resulting in a “crime,” a euphemism for abortion. Martin Luther King, Jr. advised the man that he had made a “mistake.”
He also urged another reader to abstain from premarital sex, saying that such activity was contributing to “the present breakdown of the family.”
“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man of peace, justice, and most of all a man of God,” Alveda King continued, suggesting that he would be working today to secure justice for those in the womb endangered by abortion.
In Hillside, Illinois more than 40 African-American religious and political leaders gathered on Jan. 17 at Freedom Baptist Church to lament the misrepresentation of King’s legacy. [Here it comes…] During the Illinois House debate on the issue of civil unions for homosexuals, two backers of the proposal compared same-sex “marriage” to interracial marriage.
[Bogus] Comparisons between homosexual rights and civil rights have become increasingly common in recent decades. In its own Martin Luther King Day message, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s executive director Rea Carey also [crassly] invoked the leader.
“We believe that were he alive today, Dr. King would be standing with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as we too reach for equality,” she said. [and returned to her hallucinogenic mushrooms.]
However, the press conference of African-American leaders in Illinois challenged this view. Its announcement denied that opposition to discrimination based on “immutable, non-behavioral, morally neutral condition like race” was equivalent to an effort to “normalize and institutionalize deviant sexual relations.”
David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, was of a similar view.
“Skin color is not analogous to behavior,” he said.
“Homosexual activists and their allies are advancing their subversive moral and political goals by hijacking the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy,” [Well put.] the Institute said in a press release. It said attempts to associate “philosophical conservatives” with racism and bigotry constituted intimidation.
“We shouldn’t allow the exploitation of the legacy of Dr. King to be exploited for the destructive purposes of the movement to normalize homosexuality and demonize traditional moral beliefs.”
A similar press conference was scheduled to take place in East St. Louis.
Loading ...
I dunno. How does her calling MLK pro-life square with his receiving the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award back in 1966?
I’ve personally seen people go in and out of homosexuality. If homosexuality is this flighty, then it can not be compared to a race. People cannot change their race, but people have changed their sexual inclinations. This would indicate that homosexuality is closer to a behavioral trait than a racial one.
Conservativism continues to pay an terrible price for its opposition to Dr. King’s goals and initiatives — an ongoing alienation of Blacks and other minorities. It is sad because there are issues that there could be common action.
I remember speaking to a conservative in my parish when we were debating segregation. Having failed with the moral arguments, I made the case that he was on the wrong side of history and that he would one day regret his stance. It didn’t budge him. Very sad.
This really peeves me (I am being polite).
In the interests of full disclosure, I am African-american, was raised Baptist (so there was much love for Dr. Martin Luther King) and I am in an interracial marriage, which I am quite aware was still illegal in several states, when I was born.
There is no comparison between the situation of how people of African descent were treated in this country and the miscegenation laws and the homosexual lobby and the so called “marriage equality” movement. Race is outward appearance the focus and restrictions based just on race are of recent vintage in human history.
The feminist movement usurped the civil rights movement and it was devastating to blacks and others who were just beginning to move up into management and the middle class. Welfare devastated the black family with the state taking the place of the male provider and directly discouraging marriage and even penalizing it. What a swell idea! American women, the freest, richest most entitled women on the planet as victims! And now that the black American male has been castrated, humiliated, and sold out by everyone including their own leaders, lets move on to the ‘more urgent’ issue of Gay Marriage!
Katherine, You mean, by conservatives, the Dixiecrats? You wouldn’t want to malign many modern day conservatives who work tirelessly in predominantly black neighborhoods as being the modern-day transformation of the Southern Democratic Party, now would you?
But we would also be remiss to point out, (since you bring up the polarized terms, ‘conservatives’ and ‘democrat’ here) that there are also liberals and progressives who concur that Dr. King would never have supported the genocide that abortion has become for a generation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2011/01/17/restoring_a_culture_of_life
PP uses King as well for propaganda.
Star Parker and others have commented recently on the genocide of blacks through Planned Parenthood. As we all know, Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist, among other things. I know this is a problem, as some of my black students have had as many as four abortions.
That the homosexuals have made their cause into a civil rights cause has confused some Catholic. The LGBT movement using her uncle as a spokesperson must be challenged again and again. The more this stand is challenged, the better. Their cause is not a civil rights issue.
Katherine, You mean, by conservatives, the Dixiecrats?
By conservatives, I mean conservatives. Politically, those who opposed the Civil Right Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Within the Church, during the movement to end segregation, liberal meaning those who supported an end and conservative, those who supported maintaining it.
You wouldn’t want to malign many modern day conservatives…
No, not those who break with conservativism’s past.
there are also liberals and progressives who concur that Dr. King would never have supported the genocide that abortion has become for a generation.
I know. I am one of them. Thank you for thinking of me!
And yet there are so many modern day conservatives who “don’t break with the past” you refer to since they weren’t even born yet. Of course, the civil rights movement divided the Democratic party, just as slavery divided the union. One looks forward to the day when liberals in the Democratic party, true liberals and authentic Catholics, are able to come out as conservatives (in sheep’s clothing?) and prevail upon them to end the civil rights’ violating alliance with Planned Parenthood and the abortion quota mills’ assault on innocent life.
Katherine, big time Democrats like Senators Al Gore, Sr., and Robert Byrd, both worked against, and may have even filubustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I wouldn’t call them “conservatives” when it came to monetary issues but, big government, spending Democrat liberals. So calling someone “conservative” isn’t always helpful to the discussion. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican. Some of the biggest racists I know personally, are inner city Democrats in Chicago today.
Also btw Katherine, Couldn’t help but notice that the coincidence of your posts winding up with, “That’s me!” Didn’t you claim to be that very EMHC in the other post a while back? And here you are also taking credit as that very progressive! C’est moi!
And yet even the Democratic party as presently composed, as well as its outspoken and prominent leaders, have still not come to any consensus that civil rights as regarded in this country in the 1960s (or in terms of slavery) is to equate the effort to ask that one man one woman be altered. When you think through what black Americans had in fact to overcome, and think through the financial and cultural apparatus of the present day so-called movement which is not just at the end of the day to merely have the marriage license and be done with it, quite a different picture emerges and the analogy ends (thus the possibility of “hallucination”).
But in the end I think it is not appropriate to characterize any individual conservative as the embodiment of a 60’s Dixiecrat.
Katherine: I think you need to acknowledge that both liberals and conservatives are vastly different today than they were in the 1960s.
I’ve been saying this for years. This is the first year I ever heard any “push-back” on this ridiculous comparison. Good for them.
“How does her calling MLK pro-life square with his receiving the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award back in 1966?”
My guess is that at that time, PP was not yet out in the forefront of abortion advocacy. In 1963 (just three years before) PP was still publishing pamphlets explicitly stating that abortion was NOT an acceptable form of birth control — that it “kills the life of a baby after it has begun”.
As a Protestant, MLK probably didn’t have the moral objections to contraception that we have. If Planned Parenthood was at that time still holding itself out as an organization devoted simply to helping couples avoid concieving more children than they could afford to care for, he likely saw nothing wrong with that. Most evangelical Protestants still feel the same way today — they believe abortion is wrong but any form of birth control that works BEFORE conception is OK since human life doesn’t yet exist at that point.
Great questions to ponder actually, given what we have come to observe and understand about Sanger and PP, would MLK, if alive today, still be offered a Margaret Sanger award, and two, would he ever accept? Even most of our nation’s current leadership concedes that abortion ought to be “rare” — who could really imagine that MLK would endorse the fact of the current statistics as a “good”?
Katherine: I think you need to acknowledge that both liberals and conservatives are vastly different today than they were in the 1960s.
Certainly. But that does not contradict the fact that conservativism in that period opposed civil rights and because of that, it is difficult today to bring conservatives and minorities together to work on common concerns.
The failure of conservativism to stand up for civil rights at the time their support was most needed still has an impact in the present day. The fact that liberalism prevailed on this issue has made America a better place.
Certainly. But that does not contradict the fact that conservativism in that period opposed civil rights and because of that, it is difficult today to bring conservatives and minorities together to work on common concerns.
The failure of conservativism to stand up for civil rights at the time their support was most needed still has an impact in the present day. The fact that liberalism prevailed on this issue has made America a better place.
I’m not so sure that those who strongly opposed civil rights could properly be labeled as “Conservatives”. Recall that much of the opposition to civil rights historically came from members of the Democrat Party. While liberal on many issues they were downright racist on that issue.
Katherine, admit it. The Democratic Party aka the Abortion Party was far less supportive of Civil Rights in the 1960s than the Republican Party. You have also glossed over the fact that big wig Dems like Al Gore Sr and Robert Byrd were typical big spending, big government, liberal Dems save for their position on civil rights. Liberals are also responsible for abortion on demand, gay marriage, stem cell research, and other things which directly contravene the Catholic Faith. I hardly think these have made America a better place. I seem to recall you are a Democratic operative and a big-time supportive of Obama and maintained a website called Catholics for Obama. Are you here to sow doubt and dissension on an orthodox Catholic website?
“The Democratic Party aka the Abortion Party was far less supportive of Civil Rights in the 1960s than the Republican Party.”
I’m a conservative pro-lifer who votes GOP about 95 percent of the time, but even I’m not sure I agree with the above statement. If the Democratic Party was so much more content with the status quo on segregation back in the ’60s than the GOP was, then why did George Wallace (and 20 years before him, Strom Thurmond) feel it necessary to launch third-party presidential campaigns aimed at disgruntled white Southerners? And what was Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy” all about, if not capitalizing on the discontent many (of course, not all) white Southerners had with the direction of the Democratic Party long BEFORE abortion became an issue?
It is true that plenty of individual Democrats, particularly Southern Democrats, were rather laggard on civil rights well into the 1960s and even beyond. However, I dunno that they can be considered representative of the party as a whole — any more than individual Republicans who are “pro-choice” can be considered representative of the GOP as a whole. I’m not trying to defend the current Democratic Party platform by any means; I just don’t like to see people attempting to rewrite history even for a good purpose.
Identification of the civil rights movement with any particular party or idealogical faction that existed before or after that movement is a rather tricky thing. It is particularly complicated due to the sudden social, cultural, and political changes that happend from the mid/late 60s through the early 70s. While there were both liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans on the side of Civil Rights, and those who were Civil Rights supporters ended up in all those camps later; it can also be said that the Democrats were the party of segregation and Jim Crow at the time of the major Civil Rights battles, and during the coarse of the political reallignments of the 60s some of these ended up on the Republican side of the new lines. The identification of either the Republican Party or conservative ideas, particularly in the present tense, with segregation or racism is one of the greater myths of our society.
As a matter of fact, there are quite a lot of “liberals” who marched alongside civil rights leaders who couldn’t countenance at all what the Democratic party came to embrace in the “name” of “liberalism” and so have reluctantly but still in a principled way gone elsewhere. Today, “liberalism” (supposedly the Democratic party?) shouts down or outright bars the most humane voices in their midst, what few remain.
Of course the party of Lincoln does have some present-day adherents to the current abortion regime but these voices still recognize that they do not speak for all. If the “liberals” of the Republican party of the 60s could see the effects of cultural erosion and mass genocide that resulted from their libertine embrace it is most likely if alive and leaders today they would balk.
A liberalism which assiduously undermines developing life at every turn cannot in fact be called truly liberal, can it? What happened to the maxim, “live and let live”, if there isn’t a basic respect for the simple words of the Constitution. The Democratic party as presently composed is not worthy of the titles “progressive” and “liberal” as it has abandoned its humane voices in favor of utilitarianism. Some even call it the “stupid evil party” and we all know that it hasn’t exactly employed its voice to enjoin its membership to refrain from similar sentiment against the opposing party.
Obviously the Dixiecrats of the Democratic party were far from welcoming of blacks into their own party and it was not liberalism but the methodical counting of votes of President Johnson in the Congress for the Civil Rights Act which led to its eventual passage and the change in that party’s landscape. I would again say that utilitarianism, not necessarily liberalism, won that one. Our friendly poster Katherine in her attempt to lump all “conservatives” into one slandered group is well aware though she will never remind us that there are many black conservatives in the leadership of modern day conservatism. Though the Democratic party especially of the urban areas promises a good game it never finally delivers one looks at the crumbling school systems as evidence. Charters and parochial schools funded by and advocated for by “conservatives” are the miracle in many neighborhoods which at all costs must vote with the Democratic (autocratic?) party. So much for opportunity…
And one wonders whether healthcare (which some call, Obamacare, and why is that…) as presently constituted will not similarly mostly fund death, abortion, rationed care for the elderly, euthanasia, since the Democratic party again refuses to include the voice of humanity instead opting for utilitarianism.
We have seen this week the party that is morally bankrupt — very little from leadership in the way of gun control initiatives, or mental health care, or even rhetorical questions on the broader issues of the unemployment, isolation, and violent culture which preoccupies our youth, ill prepared to assume roles as adults in larger world. Still the pundits want to talk about campaign and political rhetoric, which more reasoned minds have long since pointed out works both ways, for both parties.
If Katherine is indeed “Catholics for Obama” (waiting for the “that’s me!” moment) I for one hope that she does not go away but hangs around for awhile. If she continues to post disinformation it only serves to show the game plan, which is to demonize all who do not sign on to the program of utilitarianism. I suspect though, that if she is pro-life she comes here trolling for company, for I know from experience (sadly) that the prolife voice (particularly with a moniker, “Catholic” in front of it) is not at all welcome in her party. Idealists get shoved out, and often not so politely.
Heard that during this last election cycle, all the faith-based outreach offices of the Democratic party that were in action during the Presidential election (such as “Catholics” for Obama) had their funding yanked and were shut down. I guess the Catholics for Obama served their purpose and that’s as deep as it gets as far as being Catholic and having a place at the table for that party.
I believe that ever so slowly people will be able to recognize that gender differentiation is natural, wholesome and just and that it is irrational to confuse it with any kind of “same-sex” alternatives. The fullness of the homosexual folly is shown in efforts whereby individuals have themselves surgically mutilated trying to change their gender. How horridly can the human mind err. How shocking to see the end result of misguided desires. And this from a society that prides itself on being rational and basing its tenets on scientific inquiry.
It seems quite simple. On the issue of civil rights legislation, you had William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater on one side and Hubert Humphrey, Peter Rodino, and Mike Mansfield on the other side.
When I was part of a lay committee seeking to end segregation in my parish church and school, I will admit that “liberal” was not the only term used to describe us, but I would need Fr. Z’s permission before I could share the other terms that were applied to us. “Conservative” was not one of them.
Still it would be folly to brand Buckley as a racist, of all things, if he opposed the federal legislation. Not everyone necessarily feels federal legislation is the only or always best solution to all of our problems. Did that piece of legislation in fact remedy every woe which results from racism and segregation? The state of public schools today shows the betrayal of the ideals of the movement. The best voices of the time were faith-based as Katherine admits, “in the parish” and still today the humane voice is from the Church which is so often today vilified and excluded from even debate. If Katherine would like to now present herself as the authentic participation in civil rights from the historical time period, and by definition call anyone associated with contemporary conservative, therefore, opposed to civil rights, that is her choice. To portray those who differed as to how to go about remedying the effects of racism in our society by calling them racist doesn’t seem in line with the President’s call for us to “be better”. I wouldn’t, using her technique, condemn those who support abortion as being organized, intentional racists out to eliminate a race though in effect the actions of the supporters do show that result. Apparently their intention to eliminate a blob of cells from a woman’s dignity absolves them?
Yet Katherine for her sweeping attack still seems reluctant to defend the hijacking of MLK by PP as Fr. Z points out. Why?
Katherine,
It seems quite simple. You talk past the “inconvenient truths” which are noted above that contradict your position. You are first and foremost a Democratic Party operative, a party which as part of its platform, promotes abortion on demand in direct contravention of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. You are obviously here to promote the political interests of your political party even at the expense of the Faith. It’s sad and pathetic.
Katherine
Someone once gave me a little book to read by Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany. While it concerns the Faith it certainly has political application today. Here is a link from the EWTN library.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM
It really doesn’t take long for people to become vituperative here. Why not discuss Dr King’s legacy using the historical record, instead of trying to impose labels of the current political climate of today on the inclinations of people 50 years ago? Isn’t that what Rev. Zuhlsdorf objects to about the activists he quotes? (And must he be so personal? Because someone is in error does not mean they’re hallucinating or using drugs. That comment seemed mean-spirited to me.)
We can all be grateful to the many Catholic bishops who, like the late Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, desegregated their schools well ahead of Brown vs. Board of Education and pushed the culture forward in justice. And I’m glad to have spent this Sunday in the company of members of my church who marched with Rev. Dr. King and with Rev. James Reeb. Heroes walk among us all.
King lived at a time when abortion was illegal. How or if he would have evolved his thinking on issues of abortion, same-gender marriage, the death penalty, etc. is a matter of speculative extrapolation. He also left a heavy mark in the political climate of his times and no doubt would have influenced the US political parties further, and who can say how they might have evolved? His acceptance of the first Sanger award to me seems more puzzling for Margaret Sanger’s racist eugenics, on which we have a great deal of clarity about his views.
I was at a pro-life rally in New York on January 10. Alveda King spoke there and said that her father should not be seen as supporting Planned Parenthood because of this award. He did not attend the ceremony to accept the it and his wife spoke for him. Alveda added that she speech itself was written by someone in Planned Parenthood. So it would seem that King was at least ambivalent about PP’s mission, and the whole eugenics angle, which was so often used against blacks. His wife Coretta, on the other hand, was obviously pro-contraception. (PP was not in the abortion business then).
I told all this to a white liberal supporter of abortion and PP on another blog. She is constanting berating prolifers when we bring up the black genocide angle. “It’s completely up to the black women to decide about their abortions,” she said. “Black women are intelligent. To say you know beter than they do is to insult black women and think they can’t make decisions for themselves; you are calling them stupid” etc. etc. etc.
When she heard that Alveda King had said the above and that she and other black women were oppsing abortion, she almost literally exploded! Of course, she called Alveda a liar. She probably would have called her stupid as well if she’d had time. Just let a black woman attack the sanctity of abortion and liberal pieties go out the window. This type of thing is so typical. . . Planned Parenthood is going to have to fall eventually, the racism and hypocrisy are just so obvious. But expect some nasty racial fallout from the liberal elite.
Maybe I should really have written the above. I did tell the lady in question that I didn’t really think she was a racist – her attacks against Alveda King weren’t racist in tone — and that her main problem was that she couldn’t help reflexively attacking everyone who was against abortion; she just does it unthinkingly without seeing the contradiction between saying black women should decide for themselves and refusing to believe it when it turns out that they wanted something different from what she wanted for them. But I am sure there will be many more attacks that are racist in tone.
Dear JKNott, I believe the book you reference was put on the Index when it was first published. Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany also had some interesting opinions about the Jews. I would be interested in your thoughts on Father Sarda’s writings on that matter.
Benedetta, I never called anyone a racist. I noted that the fact of conservative opposition to the CIvil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 resulted in an unfortunate alienation of Blacks from the conservative movement that has not healed as of today.
You are right about the exemplary work of us who were members of the Catholic Interracial Council to bring about an end to segregation. Of course, it was painful to me to see Blacks forced to sit in the back of our church, receive communion after the whites did and have their children excluded from the parish school. But it was all the more joy-filled when we finally prevailed and ended this sad practice.
Katherine, I accept your clarification that you do not mean to link all current conservatives who were not even alive when the Dixiecrats took their stand. But, since we are on the subject of alienation of blacks how can you stomach affiliation with contemporary affiliation which does so much more damage to blacks than the alienation of the Dixiecrats which is to prohibit, in some places, nearly half from being born at all? I would say that is a huge violation of civil rights and makes mockery of voting rights. Isn’t that a humongous disenfranchisement? What would you say to their community who once had to sit in in the back of your church?
And, having worked in the movement (since you are making it again about you) wouldn’t you agree that PP and others have the right to hijack the message of MLK?
Katherine , you wrote – Dear JKNott, I believe the book you reference was put on the Index when it was first published. Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany .
Actually the book “Liberalism is a Sin” was not only not put on the Index but it was given support by the Church. Not surprisingly , it was vigorously opposed by liberals at the time. Both Dr Sarda’s book and the one opposing it were examined and The Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, Father Jerome Secheri, O.P. praised the book in a letter on Jaanuary 10, 1887. In part it reads: ” Whereupon, the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works and decided as follows. In the first [Liberalism is a Sin] not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda, merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therin set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.
And in regard to the refutation by D.de Pazos, called El Proceso del Integrismo, the document states that , “The same judgement, however, cannot be passed on the other work, that by D. de Pazos, for in matteer it needs corrections. Moreover, his injurous maner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of d. Sarda than against the latter’s supposed errors.”
The letter then spends significant ink chastising the “personally injurious” comments directed against the author of “Liberalism is a Sin”, “especially when directed against those who are eminent for their doctrine and their piety.”
So to sum up, I quote a review of this book which seems to apply to the crux of the matter in this discussion. The reviewer S. Stanto writes, “This book [Liberalism is a Sin ] documents the essentially destructive nature of liberalism on civilized society, religious or not, and is an important warning from the past about the very trends being embraced in Western civilization today. Important for anyone who would rescue objective truth, religious or secular, from the irrational assertions and accusations (i.e. anyone who disagrees is a “bigot”) of liberal incoherence.
Katherine, I accept your clarification…
Thank you, but I’m puzzled by what I may have said that could even be in need of clarification. I thought I picked my words very carefully. Could you explain to me what I wrote that was in need of clarification? It would help me in the future.
But, since we are on the subject of alienation of blacks how can you stomach…
I can’t stomach it. It is very tragic. That is why it is painful to me that the conservative opposition to the civil rights laws has resulted in this alienation of Blacks from conservativism even though it has been decades since the liberals were successful in winning their enactment.
What would you say to their community who once had to sit in in the back of your church?
Are you asking what DO I say? I am not shy about expressing my opposition to abortion. I do think it is particularly important that those of us who are pro-life and were active supporters of the liberal position on civil rights issues speak to the Black community about abortion. I’m thinking particularly at this time of R. Sargent Shriver, of whom I pray the angels may greet and the saints may welcome to life eternal.
Dear Dear JKNott,
I’m still not clear on what you think about Father Sarda’s views about the Jews.
Katherine, Maybe this will further clarify things for you as you have asked…here is an interesting little tidbit from the article Fr. Z posted above:
” [A]ttempts to associate ‘philosophical conservatives’ with racism and bigotry constituted intimidation.”
So was the first statement you made accusing all “conservatives” just an “attempt” or was it a completed act…hmmm
Benedetta,
No, that really does not clarify anything, in large part because you quote nothing I say but the statement of someone else. Can you quote for me anything I have written that was unclear?
But, since we are on the subject of alienation of blacks how can you stomach…
I can’t stomach it. It is very tragic. That is why it is painful to me that the conservative opposition to the civil rights laws has resulted in this alienation of Blacks from conservativism even though it has been decades since the liberals were successful in winning their enactment.
What would you say to their community who once had to sit in in the back of your church?
Are you asking what DO I say? I am not shy about expressing my opposition to abortion. I do think it is particularly important that those of us who are pro-life and were active supporters of the liberal position on civil rights issues speak to the Black community about abortion. I’m thinking particularly at this time of R. Sargent Shriver, of whom I pray the angels may greet and the saints may welcome to life eternal.
Katherine, OK. Here is what you said:
“Conservativism continues to pay an terrible price for its opposition to Dr. King’s goals and initiatives — an ongoing alienation of Blacks and other minorities. It is sad because there are issues that there could be common action.
I remember speaking to a conservative in my parish when we were debating segregation. Having failed with the moral arguments, I made the case that he was on the wrong side of history and that he would one day regret his stance. It didn’t budge him. Very sad.”
Here is what the article excerpted above said:
“[A]ttempts to associate ‘philosophical conservatives’ with racism and bigotry constituted intimidation.”
Now that I have established that I in fact do know how to cut and paste…
I’ll quote what Ms. King:
“Dr. Alveda King…cited her uncle’s advice columns written for Ebony magazine in 1957 and 1958.
‘In advising men and women on questions of personal behavior 50 years ago, Uncle Martin sounded no different than a conservative Christian preacher does now,’ she commented. ‘He was pro-life, pro-abstinence before marriage, and based his views on the unchanging Word of the Bible. Today, Planned Parenthood would condemn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of the ‘religious right’.'”
You seem mainly interested in associating contemporary conservatives with racism rather than address the subject of this post. Would it be any help to the situation if I admitted from personal experience to having had distressing conversations with individuals who though espousing liberal or progressive politics also harbored animus towards certain ethnic or religious groups? It has happened though I don’t think it would help the conversation to point it out at all…
Katerine You wrote: Dear JKNott, I’m still not clear on what you think about Father Sarda’s views about the Jews.
Katherine,
To the point in question, have I been able to clear up for you, the mistaken information you gave, that Father Sarda’s book “Liberalism is a Sin” was put on the Index of banned books but in fact was praised and confirmed as sound doctrine from the Sectetary for the Sacred Congregation?
Would you like to comment on some of the objective points of the classic manifestations of Liberalism presented in the book “Liberalism is a Sin” and the relevance of these errors in today’s political arena and elsewhere?
Katherine,
I cannot disagree with you more. The Blacks are not conservative because they do not now share, except for the few, like Ms. King, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, the conservative view of government or religion. As a very young youth, I worked in the Iowa area in the civil rights movement with some excellent priests. There was, at that time, no discussion of who was liberal and who was conservative. Those terms were not even used. All those good people who worked for civil rights were from different parties, different churches, different economic backgrounds. There was not one predominate political group among those people. The Catholic Church, along with the local Protestant denominations, was very outspoken on the issue of racial equality.
That Blacks have chosen other views than conservative is partly due to the uprising of the Black Panthers and Black Islam at about the same time we were working together as Christians. Many Blacks left the Christian churches because of Christianity, not because of conservative or liberal politics. The newer identities of Black Liberation Theology and Black revisionist theology stole many people from the Christian Churches. Groups like the Nation of Islam, which teaches that the Blacks are the Chosen People of God not the Jews, or like Obama’s ex-church, got many converts. This is not a conservative-liberal problem, but a radical-non-Christian problem as old as the civil rights movement.
The history of Black Liberation Theology is still being written, but take a look at Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and other areas outside the South, and you will see the real reason for the radicalization of the Blacks.
By the way, a long time ago, in 2000, I was the Iowa caucus representative for Alan Keyes. We had more Whites than Blacks supporting him because of his pro-life stance.
Let me add that Keyes lost to Bush in the area caucus where I was the rep. But, his pro-life stance was never popular with the Blacks, and his Catholicism made him an “outsider” among the radicalized, non-Christian Blacks. That the Black Liberation Theologians, and other Black revisionist theologians, call themselves Christian is a mockery of Scripture and Tradition. The Nation of Islam, at least, does not pretend to be Christian. I suggest you follow these trends which, from coast to coast, and probably in parts of the South, have larger political influence among Blacks than any traditional Christian groups or traditional political parties. POTUS is their man, and they know it.
Would you like to comment on some of the objective points of the classic manifestations of Liberalism presented in the book “Liberalism is a Sin” and the relevance of these errors in today’s political arena and elsewhere?
My friend Benedetta has concerns when American conservatism of a few decades ago is confused with conservatism today. Therefore, I would assume she would be even more concerned about confusing American liberalism today with Spanish liberalism of over a century ago. So, to avoid upsetting her, I will keep my comments on saying I respectfully disagree with Father’s views on the Jews.
Dr. King would not be classified as a “liberal”, as he was a minister who based his life on the Scriptures and not revisionist theology. Just a reminder from the Catholic Encyclopedia: CONDEMNATION OF LIBERALISM BY THE CHURCH
By proclaiming man’s absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supernatural religion. If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemnations of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most solemn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution “De Fide” of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical “Quanta cura” of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions…
Online
Dr. King was certainly a liberal in the American context. He was regularly refered to as such during his life. He joined with American liberals such as Hubert Humphrey, Joe Rauh, Walter Reuther, Bayard Rustin, James Carey, Paul Douglas, A. Philip Randolph, and R. Sargent Shriver (of blessed memory) to carry on his work along with groups likes Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and UAW . His initiatives were opposed by William F. Buckely, Barry Goldwater, Dean Burch, the National Review and other conservatives.
Outside the USA, including in 19th century Spain, liberals were a center right movement. If you look at the agenda of the Liberal parties in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Austraila, as well as the self-decribed liberal “Free Democratic Party” in Germany, you will find porgrammes in line with what most Americans would call the center-right. I remember hosting a group of visiting Dutch college students in the 1980s who said “we love Ronald Reagan. He is such a great liberal.” Well, by the European use of the term, yes!
God bless you.
I would have liked you to comment on the other note regarding radical Black movements….
And yet Katherine still doesn’t seem to know what to make of the fact that if Dr. King’s statements quoted above were articulated today they would be dismissed and marginalized as coming from the “Christian right”. That is the point. Would the tradition of American liberalism still embrace Dr. King today? Or has American liberalism as constituted today elected to chose instead the voice and mission of Margaret Sanger? Since most here are already convinced that Dr. King would be on the side of Pro-Life, given that the lives of children are in danger at the hands of the party that would have abortion greatly expanded and then some, I wonder whether Katherine’s time is better spent over on blogs such as the fishwrap, hell’s bible, and perhaps commonweal where the tradition of American liberalism may be due for an updating, a new springtime, a breath of fresh air, since she limits herself here to decontextualized descriptions of “conservatives” she has encountered and then when good people rightly so object, rehashes what she has said before, all the while ignoring the substance of the post and attempts to call her attention to it?
benedetta,
You are spot on. The term “liberal” cannot be expected to include dear Dr. King. He would be included in the hated Evangelical Conservative or, dare I say it, Palin Patriots’ groups.
Benedetta,
Are you referring to Dr. King’s support for national health insurance, support for labor unions, job programs, his opposition to the Vietnam War, better wages for public workers, an expanded food stamp program, and a higher minimum wage?
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
Katherine, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican. Big spending liberal Democrats, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and former Grand Kleagle, Senator Robert Byrd, opposed the Civil Rights Act. It’s kind of silly signing off “In Christ and His Mother” since your Party would have supported Mary’s “choice” to abort baby Jesus. You’re an intellectually confused person.
Katherine, It’s all good except what if the inheritors of Dr. King’s dream are not even around to benefit from all those great programs? Because the party in control would assure that a great percentage will never even have a chance to live out his dream, to apprentice and join a trade union, to choose or not to join the military, to work in civil service, to grow up to be President, priest, or physician. If these children cannot even live to see the light of day, what difference does it make, to you or I, as to the details of the Vietnam War or the war on terror? If I had pull with the great American liberal establishment, I guarantee you that in a moment of life or death I would not waste my breath on those already converted to the message. I would use those skills honed amidst the great civil rights movement to re-humanize a party gone astray. I would not dissipate righteous anger on present day conservatives who are at this moment in history on the side of life.
Katherine, It’s all good…
Benedetta,
I’m glad you agree. Thank you, my sister in Christ.
Sadly many of our fellow citizens do not agree that Dr. King’s positions on national health insurance, labor unions, job programs, the Vietnam War, better wages for public workers, an expanded food stamp program, and a higher minimum wage.
But I am happy that at least you and I agree, as we do on the important issue of human life.