Martin Luther King's good advice for atheists

[onager]

OK, originally it was good advice for the civil rights movement. But I think it's appropriate for this forum...especially since we non-believers are constantly having MLK thrown in our faces as an example of a Xian who got things done peacefully. (Funny, nobody ever mentions the white Xian preachers I heard as a kid in the South, who preached eternal segregation.)

And as a bajillion threads in this very forum show, some moderate tone-trolls constantly complain that we're too "pushy," too "strident," trying to "move too fast," have too many "fundamentalist atheists" who bash religion too much and too loudly, etc. etc.

King wrote in April 1963:

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

In his last sermon of April 1968, King had some more good advice on that "myth of time" he mentioned above:

The hour has come for everybody, for all institutions of the public sector and the private sector to work to get rid of racism. And now if we are to do it we must honestly admit certain things and get rid of certain myths that have constantly been disseminated all over our nation. One is the myth of time. It is the notion that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice. And there are those who often sincerely say to the Negro and his allies in the white community, "Why don't you slow up? Stop pushing things so fast. Only time can solve the problem. And if you will just be nice and patient and continue to pray, in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out." There is an answer to that myth. It is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I am sorry to say this morning that I am absolutely convinced that the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation - the people on the wrong side - have used time much more effectively than the forces of good will.

And no, I am NOT comparing the current condition of atheists to that of African-Americans in the 1960s...though I'm pretty sure some knucklehead will accuse me of doing that very thing. I'm just saying that Dr. King had an effective strategy for dealing with his own "moderate" concern-trolls and phony allies - ignore them, march on and keep yelling.

Oh, Bonus Irony - most of the NAACP's original founders were self-identified agnostics, including Roy Wilkins. The chief organizer of King's 1963 March On Washington was an atheist and an out gay man, Bayard Rustin. That was back in the Good Old Days when atheists, and certainly gays, were expected to always stay quietly in the background and not rock the boat. Of course, history proves that African-Americans and gays were given their rights when they asked for them NICELY. Insert your own sarcasm smiley...

[Fumesucker]

1. Are you drawing a parallel between "white moderates" and their relationship with blacks..

And Christian moderates and their relationship with atheists?

Because I can damn sure see that

[DonCoquixote]

2. Point made, but ther eis some irony

However, there is a bit of irony here as well.

I realize that no one person can speak for Atheists, any more than one person can speak for Muslims, Musicians, or any other (insert group here.) However, while there are many agnostics and atheists who would have had no problem with MLK, I have heard some atheists attack MLK because he was a clergyman.

[LAGC]

3. The only thing I've consistently said...

Is that if religion wasn't a factor, someone like MLK would have rose up and filled the vacuum of the times, demanding social change just the same. I just think the "moderates" make much ado about MLK's faith, when really if it wasn't for the fact that religion was so prevalent in those times, it could just as easily have been an agnostic or atheist person filling those shoes.

All things being equal, change was bound happen, nothing was going to stop it. History demanded it at the time.

[DonCoquixote]

4. Possibly

Although it is hard to ignore the fact that, for many Black people at the time, the Black Church was one of the main means of organizing.

[LAGC]

5. Good point.

Religion always has had a built-in advantage when it comes to organizing (for good or evil), because it has a unifying ideology binding all of its members together in kinship, whereas secular organizations tend to be more diverse.

Most humans are social creatures though, so I think even if religion was taken out of the picture, secular organizations (civic groups, labor unions, political parties, etc.) would fill the gap.

It just seems like religion has outlived its usefulness in many ways, and is still much more reactionary than it is progressive.

[trotsky]

6. "I have heard some atheists attack MLK because he was a clergyman."

Really? Which atheists have done this?

[DonCoquixote]

10. Not on this forum

but among atheists I myself know and have talked with. If anyone here at DU said it, I would have put the link.

[trotsky]

11. Surely you know how that sounds.

Starting anything with "I have heard..." is a very easy way to weaselly bash someone. Don't have to back it up, don't have to show it, just "I've heard..." and then the turd. Atheists bash MLK for being a clergyman. They also eat babies. Or so I've heard.

[DonCoquixote]

13. with alll due respect

Do you think that my conversations are only related to DU? I do have a life, and I engage in talks with people who are card carrying members of all faiths (and lack thereof). DU is not the universe.

[trotsky]

14. That has nothing to do with what I said.

I fully realize we ALL have lives off this message board. I do not question that you have conversations with diverse people in real life.

I am asking if you understand how saying what you did can come off. Especially when you can only say it was "some friends." What if I felt like bashing a group of people and cloaked it by saying "I have heard some of these people say..." and then just add on whatever garbage I want? And then get defensive when called on it?

[DonCoquixote]

27. well

you may accuse me of being a weasel, however, said people I talked to do not read this board, and have no wish to, though frankly, I have encouraged them to, as i think they would enjoy being here.

Though for what it is worth, I do offer the following non DU related reading:

http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2011/01/word-on-martin-luther-king-jr-day.html
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/chronicle-review/


and last, this one:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/24/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-humanists/
where the author wonders why religion is prevalent in "that community today."

Now, let me lay out all disclaimers, the people I mentioned do NOT repeat NOT represent all atheists, any more than any subset can represent a whole, however, I used them as an example of people who admit MLK was good, but still take swipes at the fact he was a Christian.

Again, all faiths, including the ones that define themselves as no faith, have their saints and sinners.

[darkstar3]

28. And that's attacking MLK because he was a clergyman?

"people who admit MLK was good, but still take swipes at the fact he was a Christian."

Seems to me that if someone refers to you as good, and recognizes that you have done good things with your life, that they are not "attacking" you when they tell you that your belief in fairies is misguided, at best.

Dumbo did a lot of good things in the Disney classic with his "magic feather". It's not an attack on him to state that he didn't need it, or that his belief in its power was dangerous to himself and others at times.

[trotsky]

33. Please note, at no time did I accuse you of anything.

So playing that card is doing nothing. You are utterly and completely ignoring the focus of why I responded to you in the first place. To make a claim as you did, "I have heard..." with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, is an unsettling tactic and does not further discussion. As I noted, I could make up anything I want about any group I want and toss it out there with an "I have heard...". There is no way to distinguish between a true claim and a false one.

Oh and by the way, in none of those links did I see MLK "attacked as a clergyman." Perhaps you could point out the *exact* quote where you think that happened.

[DonCoquixote]

35. so

If I understand the rules you are attempting to enforce, I cannot mention any conversations I had with atheists outside of DU because i cannot drag said people onto this forum. I offered links that offered similar sentiments, as a means of offering something, though I never claimed it was the rl conversations I had. You may try to offer rules on the internet, but until the day where all real life experiences can be cut and pasted, I suppose we will need to confine discussions to that which can be offered as a weblink.

[trotsky]

37. LOL

OK, so now your latest tactic is to accuse me of "enforcing" "rules" on you.

All I ever did was point out that when you make a claim that is literally indistinguishable from making shit up, people are going to call you on it.

I'm sorry you find this so disturbing that you had to turn it back into an attack on me.

[edhopper]

7. I call bullshit.

I think some atheist debate whether his message was from his religion, or he used his religion to mold his message.
But I doubt anybody 'attacked' him for being a clergyman.

[Goblinmonger]

8. "I have heard some atheists attack MLK"...on DU? I 3rd the Bullshit call.

I have a pretty hard time believing that was allowed to stand on DU without some comment by fellow atheists.

[Silent3]

9. Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

...I don't think that, in and of itself, making a practical political assessment of the possible speed for a major social change is a bad thing. Such a practical assessment can, of course, have a very bitter taste, expressed well when King described the white moderate of his day as someone "who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom".

Imagine for a moment, however, if Lincoln had run as a fire-breathing abolitionist, demanding full and immediate freedom for all slaves. Imagine further that he even outdid most abolitionists of his day and spoke loudly in favor of the right to interracial marriage. That would have been a true call for justice, free from paternalism, free from compromise with ugly prejudice.

Lincoln would have lost by a landslide.

More to the point, he'd have never been in a position to be a Presidential candidate in the first place. Only another "moderate" (by the low standards of "moderation" of 1860) could have taken Lincoln's place. As ugly as the compromises and half-measures made by Lincoln are by today's standards, it was either that, or no progress toward greater freedom for blacks at all. Seldom is the world actually sitting back waiting for one brave person to "speak the truth" without fear or reservation, ready to unleash radical change when this bold hero comes along, as many advocates for radical change might like to believe.

That said (dropping the position of devil's advocate now) too often the need to move carefully or slowly is used as an excuse to do nothing at all. In the matter of atheists speaking up and not being afraid to voice their opinions, I see nothing at all to be gained at this point in history by holding back.

[Thats my opinion]

12. Did you see the film about the Freedom riders?

Fifty years ago groups of young Black and White freedom riders boarded buses and travelled through the deep south where they faced violence and hatred. If you look at just who comprised this vanguard, which was at the heart of the Civil Rights movement, you will discover that almost to a person they were motivated by their religious faith. ML King was not the only Christian involved. Pull religious inspired young adults out of the Civil Rights movement and you would gut it. They won. The bigots, religious and non-religious lost.

[trotsky]

15. Bayard Rustin, mentioned in the OP...

helped start the whole Freedom Riders movement with his Journey of Reconciliation. He was a non-believer.

One could also use your reasoning to say that if you pulled the religious bigots out of the equation, the civil rights struggle might not have been so difficult or perhaps even needed in the first place. Also, didn't you say you were leaving?

[Thats my opinion]

18. Rustin was a life-long Quaker

from a devout Quaker family. He was a member of the 15th street Religious Society of Friends. With King he helped begin the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He was clearly a believer and his faith sprung from his religious non-violent ethic.

I've quit posting initial stuff, but from time to time I may respond with information I have, but I will not engage in silly debates with those whose only puurpose it it castigate all religion.

[trotsky]

24. But it's OK to castigate irreligion.

Got it.

Rustin was no believer, BTW. But if you want to dispute that the civil rights movement couldn't have happened without believers, there are a few other black freethinkers that would have disagreed with you. People of all races, beliefs/non-beliefs, worked together. But you want to grab all the credit for believers. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, I suppose.

http://www.infidelguy.com/article75.html

[LAGC]

29. Actually, didn't you pay attention to that Freedom Riders documentary?

MLK actually refused to participate in the freedom rides, much to their disappointment. Apparently their tactics were too "radical" even for him.

[onager]

30. You must have missed part of that film.

Do you remember what happened when the younger Freedom Riders asked King to join them on a bus ride?

He refused. While the show didn't provide a direct quote, at some point King apparently compared his situation in the South to Jesus Christ awaiting crucifixion.

After that, the more aggressive Freedom Riders started openly mocking King, calling him "the Lord." A couple of the interviewees thought that incident marked the beginning of the split in the civil rights movement, between the moderates and the later radicals like Stokely Carmichael.

I'd never heard that story, and found it to also have parallels to the current atheist situation. On the one side, the Faitheists and accomodationists looking down from their ivory towers, and on the other, those oh-so-nasty and intolerant people who are willing to point out that the Emperor is not only butt-nekkid, but is also most likely a child molester.

(On edit - LAGC, I posted before I read your comment. Thanks.)

[rug]

16. Let me know when you'll risk your neck at a lunch counter.

[darkstar3]

17. And people call CH "flippant."

Perhaps you were unaware that the OP has lived in several parts of the world where speaking openly about being an atheist can be labelled as apostasy and legally punished? Perhaps you were unaware that there is no need for him to visit a lunch counter, as he can easily risk his neck just by speaking honestly anywhere his anonymity is lost...

[rug]

19. I'm still unaware of those assertions.

Not that they're relevant.

[darkstar3]

20. And neither is your "contribution".

[rug]

21. Thank you for responding to an irrelevant post.

[darkstar3]

22. It was relevant to me, and my continued observance of your posts. To the OP, not so much.

[rug]

23. Feek free to continually observe.

I'm flattered.

As to the OP, I expect he's capable of his own response.

[onager]

32. Sorry to all - well, most - for my absence from the thread.

I worked late today and had some stuff that had to get done tonight. I didn't want anyone to think I was doing a hit-and-run.

All responses are appreciated, and I'm glad that nearly everybody saw the point I was making.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Aaaand the next-to-last paragraph of the OP is confirmed.

[rug]

26. I'm sure he intended no comparison.

It must be coincidence.

[onager]

31. Thanks, but I grew up in the South and did run some risks...

Racially speaking. But I don't want to go into a whole litany of Bad Stuff That Happened To Me and sound like an Internet Tough Guy Xian or something.

[rug]

34. Ah, and I thought this was about the perils of being an atheist.

My bad.

[onager]

36. It was, until your "lunch counter" comment.

Attention deficit disorder?