⒈ Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail
To preserve the evil system of Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail. As an orator, he used many persuasive techniques to reach the hearts and minds of his audience. The letter defends the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism. What is the Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail goal of education? Segregation, King contends, is unjust as it raises one group above Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail, creating a false sense of superiority in Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail oppressor, and Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail false sense of inferiority in those oppressed. And when he says it is the only way, he really means it. Martin Luther Pros And Cons Of Ecocentrism Jr. Needless to add, the police made sure that he is not going to have a nice time there: he was put in a dark cell, Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail which there was Death Of A Salesman And The American Dream Essay mattress, and was denied his lawfully guaranteed phone call.
Letter from Birmingham Jail AP Gov NEW
Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.
To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.
Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion?
We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.
We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community.
The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained.
Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them.
So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.
Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists. I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.
I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue.
I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago. But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states.
I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest? Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love.
There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists. There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Small in number, they were big in commitment.
Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic.
Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us.
They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. Reasons, why they were such momentous pieces of legislation, are that the Civil Rights Act of officially outlawed the then common practice of segregating public accommodations such as public schools, libraries, beaches, movie theaters, theme parks, hotels and even restaurants by race, for integrated facilities.
Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act of also barred discrimination in employment based on gender, race, and religion, which were all factors that had been used to suppress certain groups, such as women from meaningful career opportunities, personal autonomy, and financial independence. African-Americans were denied suffrage through poll taxes, literacy tests, and racial intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some laws in Birmingham were not fair to every race and only targeted minorities. He was non-violently protesting to change these unjust laws so that every man, woman, and child could have the same opportunities and rights. Injustice had infected Alabama, and he wanted it to stop before it spread to other parts of the country.
In order for a law to be just, the majority must convince the minority and be willing to follow the law themselves King, p. King explains how he felt about the unjust laws through this letter, he provides examples of how it felt to be part of the minority. An unjust law is affecting the lives of everyone who is part of the minority in every aspect of their daily lives. King believes that freedom is never voluntarily given by the majority or leader, it has to be demanded by the minority King, p.
This in itself is an unjust and immoral action towards the minority. In this letter, the clergymen go on to state that the protest taking place, although peaceful in nature, have become violent and hate-filled A Call for Unity. Of course, it would be foolish of anyone not to take in consideration the racial tensions taking place in their time. It makes sense for them to call off those protest because of the violence that ensues. King was a man who respected the law but wanted justice for rights.
He upheld that violence was never the answer when trying to transform social changes. By writing the letter in Birmingham, Alabama King got more attention toward his actions in the community of injustice being pressured against the government. In his philosophy, he set out to achieve his objectives by whatever means applicable or necessary, even if it implied violence. If physically attacked, he would fight back in a physical manner. However, later in his life, Malcolm X became nonviolent. While King wanted the White and Black Americans to integrate, Malcolm felt that Black Americans should not have integrated with the other races, stating that the Blacks needed to operate separately and develop self-respect for their race Mattson, Martin Luther King Jr.
The letter was a response to everyone who questioned his methods, like breaking laws. King continues on by stating that even just laws can become unjust if they are unjustly applied. This is stated best when King….Where Romeo And Juliets Suicides their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail with words of interposition and nullification? Regardless of the obvious lack of rights that the African American people had, the Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail christian moderate, homeless to harvard with the clergymen decided against taking action towards ending…. Elliott Davis v. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail in these Summary Of Martin Luther King Letter From Birmingham Jail times.