Lets set the record straight on Martin Luther King Jr.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Chris, (and Steve if interested)Regarding your comment to Steve on the previous thread as to evidence that Martin Luther King was or was not a communist, the real evidence is in fact quite troubling.
From his first days as an activist, Martin Luther King's activities and associates have been and continue to be centers of controversy. Allegations of King's Communist association have been dismissed by his supporters as examples of "McCarthyism" and "Redbaiting." However, for the sake of truth and historical accuracy, a close inquiry into the affiliations of Dr. King's most intimate involvements and relationships, even in the face of warnings by President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy, can not be simply dismissed as political witch-hunting or smear tactics.
It must first be made clear that no responsible critic of Dr. King has ever accused him of being a member of.the Communist Party. Furthermore, these critics certainly recognized that Dr. King had every right to take advice from and associate with whatever political elements he chose. The objection held by most who opposed the making of a national holiday commemorating King's birthday (not to mention the unthinkable act of cannonization!!!)was that if he was to be the only American so singularly honored (what was formerly George Washington's Birthday is now designated "President's Day" to honor all Presidents), a thorough inquiry into his private and public life -- both of which were filled with controversy -- should have been made. But this was never done which was demeaning to all Americans and a disservice to historical accuracy. Until all allegations concerning Dr. King are fully answered, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and now a proposed cannonization!!, will remain the occasion for suspicions about the man to be commemorated.
Leading the forces opposed to the King holiday, Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina made some serious accusations linking Dr. King to Communist Party members, former members, and operatives. According to Helms, such unsavory individuals were taken into Dr. King's confidence and became some of his closest advisors. Through King, Helms theorized, the Communists would have attempted to manipulate the civil rights movement and create an atmosphere of fear and hatred between blacks and whites that would erupt in racial warfare and destabilization. If the Senator's allegations are indeed true, then it must be concluded that King was unwittingly or passively allowing himself to be used for violent goals far removed from what he publicly preached.
During a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Helms revealed that in the early 1950s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recruited two former high-ranking Communist Party members, Morris and Jack Childs, to serve as informants on the party's secret activities and sources of funding. Code-named Operation Solo, the FBI investigation lasted until 1980, during which time it was learned through Jack Childs, that the Soviet government funded the Communist Party USA to the tune of approximately $1 million per year. This funding clearly made the CPUSA an illegal American branch of the Soviet government. Informant Jack Childs also reported to the FBI, in 1953, that New York attorney Stanley David Levison was not only knowingly being used as a conduit for Soviet funds, but also assisted in managing the secret party coffers. Levison was introduced to Dr. King by Bayard Rustin, a King associate, in the summer of 1956.
Levison would later be described by King's widow, Coretta Scott King, as a "devoted and trusted" friend of her husband. Levison assisted King in organizational matters and political strategy, wrote some of his speeches, and advised in hiring personnel to staff King's Southern Christian. Leadership Conference (SCLC). According to Senator Helms, "There is no evidence that Levison broke with the CPUSA .... Levison had been involved not as a rank-and-file member [of the CPUSA] but as an operative involved with clandestine and illegal funding of the CPUSA by a hostile foreign power."
After the FBI informed Attorney General Robert Kennedy of Dr. King's affiliation with Levison, King was advised in January 1962 by the Attorney General to sever his relationship with Levison. The advice went unheeded. In May of 1962, Levison wrote the speech King delivered to the convention of the United Packinghouse Workers of America. A year later, still having failed to act on the Attorney General's advice, King again was personally warned about his involvement with subversives -- this time by President Kennedy himself, who told the civil rights leader: "They're Communists. You've got to get rid of them."
Another Communist to whom President Kennedy was specifically referring was Hunter Pitts O'Dell, alias Jack H. O'Dell, hired by King to work as his executive assistant in the SCLC at the urging of Levison. O'Dell had Communist ties going as far back as the 1940s. In 1956, he was questioned by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security about his work on behalf of the Communist Party in New Orleans. Four years later, he was questioned by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. On both occasions he refused to answer the committee's questions. According to government sources, O'Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party as of 1959.
After his meeting with President Kennedy, King accepted O'Dell's resignation from the SCLC. But intelligence sources reported that O'Dell continued to work out of SCLC's offices advising and influencing Dr. King. He formally rejoined the SCLC staff in 1970.
It should be noted in passing that, from 1980 to 1983, O'Dell was listed as a member of the World Peace Council, probably the best-known and most influential Soviet front organization operating in the West. Furthermore, as of 1984, O'Dell was in charge of international affairs for Democratic presidential candidate Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity).
As for Stanley Levison, after King had received a second warning to avoid him, the two men agreed that they would communicate solely through an intermediary named Clarence B. Jones. This clandestine method of communication went on from 1963 to 1964 and is by itself a very powerful indictment of Martin Luther King's all too willing collaboration with agents of Communist subversion.
It should be reiterated that no evidence has been found to prove that King was himself a Communist. Nonetheless, if a national holiday had been proposed to honor a white person who had maintained advisors affiliated with such anti-American groups as.the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist White Peoples' Party (Nazis), would there not be ample cause -- and even a duty -- to oppose the move?
King's support for causes and events sponsored by the Communist Party or one of its front groups must also be considered in light of his national holiday. In late 1962, he addressed a meeting of the National Lawyers Guild, which was officially cited as "the foremost legal bulwark" of the CPUSA. It was also affiliated with the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Either King did not bother to check the background of the NLG before appearing at its functions, or he simply decided to overlook its clear CPUSA affiliation.
With the above evidence to back them up, the FBI and its Director, J. Edgar Hoover, requested and were granted permission by Attorney General Robert Kennedy to maintain surveillance, including wiretaps, on Dr. King's offices and hotel rooms from 1963 until his murder in 1968. That surveillance produced so many transcripts of wiretaps that, together with testimony from witnesses and informants, it filled almost fourteen cabinet files.
King supporters claim that the FBI's surveillance on King was illegal. But the precedent for it was President Roosevelt's 1940 Executive Order authorizing such surveillances, with the written consent of the Attorney General, in cases affecting national security. No court ever ruled against the procedure in such cases.
Did Martin Luther King's surveillance involve matters of national security? It must be remembered that King at the time was being advised by a man who had been in charge of laundering Soviet monies destined for the CPUSA. It must also be noted that the early 1960s marked the beginning of what would be a particularly unstable decade in American history. Based on these facts, one can hardly call the FBI surveillance frivolous or unwarranted.
In 1976, the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the FBI surveillance of Dr. King amounted to harassment. Based on the committee's findings, the SCLC and former King aide Bernard Lee filed a suit against the United States government asking for monetary damages and requesting that the tapes and files on Dr. King be destroyed. On January 31, 1977, Federal District Judge John Lewis Smith Jr. declined to award monetary damages to Lee and the SCLC but ordered all of the FBI tapes and transcripts of surveillance on King to be sealed in the National Archives for fifty years. Although not a complete victory for the pro-King forces, the sealing of the critical tapes would in the long run make it easier to have the King holiday approved by Congress.
The history of the establishment of the King holiday bill revealed that extraordinary measures were undertaken to rush it into law. In 1979, for example, supporters of the holiday in the House failed to obtain the two-thirds majority required to suspend the rules, which would have limited debate and prohibited amendments. On July 29, 1983, Democratic Representative Katie Hall of Indiana reintroduced the King bill. After the measure was assigned to a House committee, the King forces gathered enough strength this time to suspend the House rules and send the bill to the floor. Four days after it was introduced, the bill was passed by the full House. In the Senate, Republican Majority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee refused to send the bill to a committee, as is usually the case with any important piece of legislation, but instead put the bill directly on the Senate calendar. On October 18, 1983, in an attempt to have the King files released from the custody of the National Archives, Senator Helms and others requested that the seal order of 1977 be overturned. But Judge Smith refused to reverse his earlier decision.
Critics of Helms accused the Senator of trying to smear King by requesting that the FBI files be opened. But, in a well-argued emergency motion filed with the Supreme Court on October 19, 1983 on behalf of Helms and Republican Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, attorneys Lawrence Straw and William J. Olson noted that "legislation is pending which seeks to elevate Dr. King to the status of a national hero, on a level above our founding fathers whose birthdays have not been elevated to the status of a national holiday. Dr. King would thereby become a role model for future generations. In extraordinary circumstances such as these, a Senator must have access to all records which could relate to that person's character and the principles espoused by him. The constitutional duty of a member of the United States Senate is to thoroughly and dispassionately review all information which could influence his vote, debate that information on the Senate floor, and then cast a vote in accordance with his analysis of the information."
The attorneys also questioned whether Judge Smith was acting within his constitutional authority when on the previous day, he refused the Senators access to the tapes. Since the surveillance order on King was not in violation of the law and had come from the Executive Branch, it must be accepted that only the President could order the FBI to seal the tapes. In addition to the federal courts overstepping their constitutional authority, the attorneys argued that if the sealing order was not lifted, then the Judicial Branch would in effect have the authority to control the Legislative Branch's access to vital information pertaining to its congressional duties, thereby violating that branch's constitutional independence. Finally, the attorneys made what could turn out to be a prescient observation, declaring: "Any injury which occurs will undeniably be irreparable. Once a bill has been signed into law, later disclosures of information which might have influenced the legislators or the President in their consideration cannot void a law which has been passed."
Those who continue to hold that the King surveillance was illegal should note the 1977 case of McSurely versus McClellan in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that in the course of carrying out their constitutional duties, Congressmen have the right of access to information, even if it is illegally obtained. Although King supporters have the holiday they have long pushed for, the questions and doubt will surely never subside as long as the sealed tapes remain hidden.
Why were the King tapes sealed? If indeed King had no subversive or politically embarrassing affiliations -- a claim that has been disproven countless times -- why not simply make the tapes available to the public and clear the air? Apparently King did have something to hide. Warned by the highest authorities in the federal government that his key contacts were CPUSA operatives, he undertook secretly to continue his relationship with these persons. It would be naive to assume that King gave his support to leftist activities unknowingly.
America could be in for a rude awakening on Monday, February 1, 2027, when the King tapes are unsealed and the nation listens in horror, realizing at last that the man they will have been honoring for 41 years was in effect a pawn, unwittingly perhaps, but a pawn nonetheless in an attempt to use members of his race not for their own advancement, but for the violent polarization of Americans along racial lines.
What almost must be said about the King record is that, apart from whatever may be in the sealed files, enough information about his associations with subversives is known to cast grave doubt on his character. He was intimately involved with Communists Levison and O'Dell, and he cooperated with other Communists such as Carl and Anne Braden. In September 1957, he attended and spoke at a training school in Tennessee with several top Communists. He accepted funds from identified Communist front groups such as the Southern Conference Education Fund. And former FBI undercover operative Julia Brown -- who reported on Communist Party activities for an entire decade until 1960 -- testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1979 that "the [Communist] cells that I was associated with in Cleveland were continually being asked to raise money for Martin Luther King's activities and to support his movement ... while I was in the Communist Party, as a loyal American Negro, I knew Martin Luther King to be closely connected with the Communist Party ...."
Liberals, Communists and their sympathizers everywhere have won a great victory with the creation of an official King holiday7 The measure authorizing it should be repealed. As a first step toward this and toward repairing the soiled image of America that the creation of this holiday has caused, the King files should be opened and made available to Congress (and the Vatican if they truely wish to know the case of this controversial figure).
-- Harold (HP9056@aol.com), January 18, 2000
Thanks for the excellent info, Harold.BTW, here is information on King's plagiarism:
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html
-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.
May I suggest a few things in his defence.I had my wrists slapped on the other MLK thread by suggesting the MLKs possible Communist attachments didn't matter. Of course it matters, but I do believe that many Communists belong to the school of "desperate situations call for desperate measures".
Marx believed (and so do many die-hard Socialists) that _only_ a revolution would bring about the ideal society which he believed in. He did not believe that society could evolve (or be persuaded to evolve) into something less exploitative and unfair.
It is quite plausible that many Black activists have the same pessimistic outlook. Most of the militant constitutionalists I speak to (on TB2000) have abandoned any hopes that the relationship between the government and its citizens in America might be restored to what the Founding Fathers intended. It does not surprise that when faced with some of the outrageous segregation and discrimination that the Civil Rights Movement eventually defeated, MLK and others looked towards subversive means of achieving their goals.
I think it is absurd to accuse MLK of polarising Blacks & Whites; if anything he was trying to de-polarise them. It was the state that was polarising Blacks & Whites with segregation in schools.
[Regarding the public holiday - I do think this is a mistake. A public holiday commemorating progress on Civil Rights would be more appropriate. The point about President's Day is completely valid.]
I think there is an element of McCarthyism here; the US persecution of Communism is entirely disproportionate to the threat it represents. There is a Communist Party in the UK. Everyone knows about them, and they see no reason why they should hide. They don't get many votes of course (I suppose it is ironic having a Communist candidate in a democratic election), but that is because most people know that Communism in unviable as well as unacceptable. Of course they are a potential security/intelligence hazard, but no intelligence gatherer with any intelligence would operate as a known Communist.
And finally... (don't take this wrong way)
Christians believe that at some point in the future Christ will return and set up his own Kingdom on Earth. I don't see how Christians can attack Communism and the U.N. for wishing to destroy the U.S. when the first thing Christ will do when he comes back is destroy the U.S.
Come on guys... Christians (like Communists, and undemocratic Socialists, etc. etc.) do not believe the world can evolve into what they think it should be (or what they want it to be). They believe that is has to be accomplished by FORCE, and in this respect they are no different from every "un-American" revolutionary group. The only difference (which only you perceive) is that your cause is RIGHT... F
Funnily enough, the Communists believe that their cause is RIGHT too...
Just a thought
God Bless
-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), January 20, 2000.
Dear Harold, Where were you in 1963-1968? I was is a Catholic high school in a northeast state. What I remember most is that Martin Luther King Jr. was hated because he was black and because he wanted all people (black, white and other colors) to be free to choose how they live. I remember that he was a preacher who believed sincerely in God and salvation. I remember that in my neighborhood(all white) he was distrusted and condemned for his preachings. I am also not stupid enough to believe all the goings on in the senate of the US as it has been proved over and over again that many participants will go to any length to discredit someone, protected by the guise of national importance. Remember McCarthy? I remember many wonderful things about Martin Luther King---but mostly I remember that he was hated because he was black. Ellen
-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), January 20, 2000.
As I understand it, we don't canonize people simply because they're widely & deeply hated.If we did, Bill & Hillary would be our next two saints. ;->
-- just telling you what (you@already.know), January 21, 2000.
I came upon this page through a search engine for my own MLK Socialism page, which talks about MLK being a socialist and what he believed to be a Marxist when it came to economics.Here is the URL for it. http://www.yaysoft.com/ku/redrom/mlk.html
Thank you.
-- Jerry Ku (jerryku@houston.rr.com), November 01, 2000.
My friends,I admire the person of Dr. Martin Luther King. I do not believe he was saintly in the least. I am not saintly either, to say the least. He was a charismatic preacher and leader. Wasn't he part of the Protestant church, though? To make my admiration for him, or anyone else's, a cause for his cannonization, would seem absurd. I can see the Native American community coming forward to promote the cause of Geronimo, or Chief Joseph; with much the same logic.
I really believe there are quite a few, even in the Catholic fold, who have deserved cannonization and shall not have anything like it. Perhaps we can hope one day to meet Dr. King in the company of the saints. I certainly expect to see Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Padre Pro, the Mexican Jesuit martyr, Jose Mojica, another great Mexican, and even Frank Sinatra! They should be there, if there is an end to Purgatory. I trust in the mercy of My Saviour that I may be counted one of them. Remains to be seen!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2000.
Eugene: Father Pro has already been beatified, he is just one step away from canonization:PADRE MIGUEL AGUSTIN PRO
NaciC3 el 13 de enero de 1891 en Guadalupe, MC)xico. Desde niC1o tuvo una personalidad y espC-ritu alegre. Su familia era muy catC3lica pero Miguel permaneciC3 un tiempo alejado de la religiC3n. Dos de sus hermanas se hicieron monjas y Miguel, empezC3 a pensar en la vocaciC3n del sacerdocio. A los 20 aC1os ingresC3 a la CompaC1C-a de JesC:s, el 10 de agosto de 1911. En 1910 estalla la RevoluciC3n en MC)xico. En 1914 la situaciC3n se torna crC-tica y el rector del seminario decide sacar a todos los miembros de la comunidad del paC-s. Algunos hermanos llegaron a Texas y California. Otros partieron rumbo a Nicaragua, EspaC1a y BC)lgica. Miguel pasC3 por varios paC-ses y en cada lugar trabajC3 como maestro y continuC3 sus propios estudios. Fue ordenado sacerdote en BC)lgica el 31 de agosto de 1925. Al poco tiempo se enfermC3 y sus superiores decidieron enviarlo de regreso a MC)xico sin conocer el problema de la persecuciC3n religiosa en el paC-s. En 1926 llegC3 a MC)xico y a los pocos dC-as se suprimiC3 el culto pC:blico. Miguel entonces ejerciC3 su ministerio en secreto en varias parroquias por lo que sufriC3 una dura persecuciC3n por parte de las autoridades. Un tiempo despuC)s fue arrestado y luego liberado, pero esto no lo amedrentC3 y por el contrario reiniciC3 su labor con mC!s fuerza que antes. Se trasladaba por toda la capital en bicicleta para llevar la comuniC3n, bautizar, confesar, administrar los santos C3leos y realizar matrimonios, ademC!s de recolectar y distribuir alimentos entre los pobres. En noviembre de 1927 los tres hermanos Pro son arrestados y acusados como responsables del atentado contra el presidente Calles. Se ordenC3 su ejecuciC3n sin juicio alguno. El dC-a de la ejecuciC3n el padre Miguel es el primero en salir de la prisiC3n. Como C:ltima voluntad pide un tiempo para rezar. Luego se puso de pie y con los brazos extendidos en forma de cruz, rehusC3 ser vendado. En el momento de ser fusilado dijo con voz firme y clara: viva Cristo rey!. El general Calles pensaba que la ejecuciC3n serC-a una ocasiC3n para celebrar la cobardC-a de los catC3licos mexicanos e invitC3 a la prensa. Pero la muerte fue tan heroica que las fotografC-as produjeron el efecto contrario. Al dC-a siguiente miles de personas acompaC1aron los restos del padre Miguel. El Padre Pro fue beatificado en MC)xico el 26 de setiembre de 1988 por el Papa Juan Pablo II.
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.
Something strange happened. Where in the original text there was an accent (B4) different letters appeared. Sorry, it was not my fault.Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 02, 2000.
Thanks, Enrique,
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2000.
--Stupid keyboard moved as I was starting to write, Thanks. I knew a cause was under way for Padre Pro. I wish I also knew if Ana Catalina Emmerich (already beata) will be cannonized. Do you have any information about Mojica, the opera singer and movie star who took holy orders and became a bishop later in Peru? I seem to recall it that way. I'm not saying he would qualify, just curious for further news.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2000.
Eugene: As a boy I saw some of the movies where JosC) Mojica appeared singing with the magnificent voice he had. I don't know much about his personal life, but what I know is that he was born in Guanajuato State, he studied music and singing and took part in some operas. Later he appeared in movies and finally he joined the Franciscan Friars and lived in Cuzco, PerC:. Occasionally he returned to Mexico and sang in different theaters to collect money for the Missions. He wrote an autobiagrophy called in Spanish YO PECADOR. Unfortunately I haven't read it. As far as I know he never became Bishop and I really don't know if he has been proposed for canonization. I'm sending you a page about the saints and causes of betification of Mexicans and as you will see JosC) Mojica is not in the list:http://www.aciprensa.com/Maria/santmexi.htm
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.
Hi, E & E.
I found the following on the Internet:
"... Fray Jose Mojica, Mexican opera and motion-picture star of the 20s and 30s who at the height of a successful career renounced the world to become a Franciscan friar."
This is not definitive, but I would say two things:
1. It is not common for the pope to name a Franciscan to the episcopacy.
2. If Fray Jose had been a bishop, I think that the writer of the above would probably have mentioned it.
Muy buenos dias. JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 03, 2000.
Thank you both, John and Enrique;I'm just about sure I read Mojica's obituary some years back, and it said he had died in his 80's in Peru. He had suffered the aputation of both legs, being a diabetic.
I did read his autobiography, Yo Pecador. It was a fine book, and in it he related his life-long devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe, and also St. Francis, whom he called his 'Father.' It's an inspiring book, and to me very interesting, since I'm an opera lover.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2000.
Eugene: the book YO PECADOR was made into a movie under the same title. If I am not mistaken the singer who played Mojica's part was ....Geraldo (I think his nombre de pila is Pedro) If you have a chance to see it , do it, it is a good movie.Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 04, 2000.
+
Friends, here are a few details about the film Enrique mentioned:
Yo pecador (1959) ...
Directed by Alfonso Corona Blake
Produced by Oscar J. Brooks
Writing credits: Fernando Galiana (adaptation) and Eduardo Enrique Rios
Genre: Drama / Musical
Production Company: Producciones Brooks
Runtime: 120 minutes ... Country: Mexico ... Language: Spanish ... Color: Color (Eastmancolor) ... Sound Mix: Stereo
Cast (in alphabetical order)
Pedro Geraldo (as Jose Mojica)
Eduardo Alcaraz ... Miguel Arenas ... Pedro Armendariz ... Augusto Benedico ... Armando Bianchi ... Anita Blanch ... Elena Blumenkron ... Jose [not Eugene] Chavez ... Yolanda Ciani ... Elizabeth Dupeyron ... Fernando Gabrielli ... Sara Garcia ... Roberto Kenny ... Libertad Lamarque ... Christiane Martel ... Nadia Haro Oliva ... Enrique Rambal ... Carmela Rey ... Manola Saavedra ... Andres Soler ... Juan Ureta
Original music by RaC:l Lavista, Cinematography by Jack Draper, Film Editing by Gloria Schoemann, Set Decoration by RaC:l Serrano
God bless you.
John
PS: It may interest you to know that one "Enrique Ortiz" did the cinematography for a 1920 Cuban film called "Dios Existe."
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 05, 2000.
John: It is interesting to see one's namesake (tocayo)doing something good. At the time of "Dios Existe" I wasn't even born yet and that E. Ortiz was not even a relative. I haven't seen the movie, but I'll try to get it in some Video Club.Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.
EO:
It will be a milagro if you can find "Dios Existe."
It was a silent film, and many from that era have been destroyed by the ravages of time.
Buena suerte. JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 06, 2000.
que paso con su familia?
-- ayari (ayari@netzero.net), January 15, 2001.
Is this post saying that MLK is going to be canonized? Wasn't he a Protestant? I thought only Catholics were canonized by the Vatican. And I don't think he's done any intercessory miracles. Is MLK's church going to make him a saint? You know, if MLK was a Communist, wouldn't that have been brought up by all those racists when he was trying to desegregate this country? I mean come on, a black Communist wouldn't have stood a chance. And those years were close to the era of McCarthyism. I think if there had been anything to find, people would have found it. Personally, MLK day is my favorite secular holiday. He made this country a better place, brought it closer to its ideal of freedom. I admire Dr. King's courage and am happy that our country celebrates his life. I hope we celebrate it for many years to come.-Hannah
-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 21, 2001.
Even though Martin Luther King did not performed what most people call a miracle, I feel as though in a sense that he did peform a miracle. First he helped blacks obtain the rights that they have now, and second he WAS in a sense a marytr for this reason he lived for a reason that is to help those bieng treated unfairly and died helping others.
-- arisca venezela (crazy woman@yaho.com), February 05, 2001.
Thanks Arisca! I totally admire Dr. King. He made this country a better place for everyone, and it drives me crazy when anyone tries to belittle his accomplishment. God worked through him to make our country live up to its ideal of freedom. I was just responding to the notion that he would be canonized.-Hannah
St. James, pray for us. Most Holy virgin Mary, pray for us.
-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.
No, he won't be canonized, Hannah. You were right in thinking that the Catholic Church canonizes only Catholics. In doing so, she is not making a statement that non-Catholics are damned or that there are only Catholic holy people. In part, the Church is showing sensitivity to Dr. King's religious community, many members of which would think it presumptuous for our Church to be making a declaration about a non-member.
God bless you.
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 06, 2001.
"Strait is the gate", says the Bible. But we want to get our facts "Straight". By the same token, "Canonized" does not take a double N.This being said, The whole exchange about MLK gives me the unmistakable impression that "truth" is something evasive. I wish I could find an unbiased, critical, well-informed assessment of all the accusations that have been levelled at MLK.
-- Berend (brndspt@yahoo.co.uk), February 05, 2002.
Sir:
Anyone from now until the end of the world can level accusations, some true and some false. Dr. King was a flawed man, as all human beings are. He surrounded himself with aggrieved men who looked up to him. He had a marvelous gift which was perfect for the objectives of the civil rights movement; and he deserves much of the credit now given him universally; even if he was flawed. Why anyone would call him a candidate for sainthood is a mystery. But; at this distance, it's for sure many would love to see even this glory heaped on him. This is the power of the cult of personality in modern society.What's depressing to many Americans is the inevitability, and the shamelessness of the pandering of our politicians, who throw great slop-buckets of this sentimentality to the same aggrieved class of black malcontents who never can have enough.
I'm not saying they are to be despised. Many have a right to feel disenfranchized. But what possible good can it do a poor or ignorant black man and his family; to have a new library or a park named after the great man? Isn't this only a wink of the eye? Dr. King has been used as a political pawn over the years, by an unholy alliance of opportunists and hypocrites. What real dignity he possessed in life is now layered over with hype and caricature. He deserved better.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 06, 2002.
Please have my friend (Clarence Jones) email me at speedygon9@yahoo.com or call me at 860-550-6583 (work) or 860-983-1992 (cell).Thanks
David
-- david gonzalez (speedygon9@yahoo.com), July 24, 2002.
>King supporters claim that the FBI's surveillance on King was >illegal. But the precedent for it was President Roosevelt's 1940 >Executive Order authorizing such surveillances, with the written >consent of the Attorney General, in cases affecting national >security. No court ever ruled against the procedure in such cases.This is false. The Attorney General gave Hoover ONE MONTH to do surveillance on King. Hoover found nothing incriminating so Robert Kennedy called it off. Hoover acting on his own, secretly continued the surveillance without Kennedy's permission. Hoover had a personal vendetta with King. His acts were therefore illegal because they were not authorized; just the obsessive-compulisive behavior of a man filled with rage, corrupted by power.
-- Derrick (petythug@aol.com), January 20, 2003.
Cool!
-- Brandon Gonzalez (bg034ever@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.