April 4 marks the anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968. If he were alive today, he would not be pleased with the state of his country. With a prophetic voice, the great preacher would call the nation out on its two undeclared wars.
The first undeclared war Dr. King would point to is our war with Libya. A realistic pacifist, he would not tolerate the euphemisms used by our president to obfuscate the fact that we are in armed conflict with yet another nation across the world, yet again.
There has been little to no debate about this on either side of the aisle, and in the days since the airstrikes began, the national conversation has not deepened. We are pushing forward into a troubled country, supplying weapons and bombing, all without a serious public conversation about the strategy, reason and not to mention the morality of this course of action. If we are going to war in order to prevent genocide, King would call us to be honest and forthright about what we are doing.
The second undeclared war Dr. King would have the courage to name is the war against working people. Assassinated while supporting the sanitation workers in Memphis, King understood that unions allowed people to improve their lives by standing together.
The freedom to associate is not just a political principle but a religious one as well. The current assault on public sector unions would appall the man who died supporting one of them.
In states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, New York, New
Jersey and Florida, the right of workers to organize has been or is about to be curtailed. By now the public has caught on that this is not about money and budgets but about preventing people from acting collectively. It is an assault on democracy.
Beginning with worship services over the April 1st weekend and continuing through early April, congregations and faith groups, civil and human rights activists, students and unions will come together in actions all around the country to remember Dr. King's vision of economic justice, under the banner, "We are one."
Dr. King would be at these actions. And with his gift for making connections between events here in the United States and events around the world, he would call us as a nation to be honest about our two undeclared wars.
Follow Lillian Daniel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lillianfdaniel
Aaron David Miller: An Honest Speech to the American People
MLK ConservativeSaint: OBAMA DOES BUSH THREE BY CARPET B0MBING ...
Meesterclean: I even believe MLK would stand up to an iniquitous
The victory of non-violence: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia all testify to ...
Kim Bobo
7% for all the sweat, genius and talent strikes a heavy blow to the fiber and soul of America. And what do Stock Trader contribute to the America Economy for 90% Profit and 60% of after tax profit in the form of dividends each year?
----Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. King advocated for non-violence....he (like Gandhi) was not a pacifist.
The difference is subtle, but vital. A pacifist is someone who will not use violence under any circumstances, to achieve any goal. Some who is a support of non-violence is someone who seeks to bring about about change by any non-violent means possible...
...but recognizes that violence is sometimes an unfortunate necessity, in order to protect others.
I think the current Dalai Lama explained it best in talking about the difference between "compassion" and "stupid compassion". What he called "stupid compassion" is kindness in the face of another's cruelty. The unwillingness to draw sharp boundaries...and negative consequences to another person's outrageous behavior. He calls it stupid compassion, because such actions help no one, and can harm just as many as violence.
True compassion understands that there are times for kindness....and there is a time for harshness, when dealing with someone who is outrageously cruel...and neither understands nor respects any other language but that of power, and violence.
There are many realpolitik reasons for not getting involved in the conflict in Libya. But on a pure humanitarian basis, the call is a pretty clear one, when you dealing with sort of sociopath that Kaddaffi is.
If you click on the link with the word "pacifist" in this piece it will take you to a collection of quotes from King on the subject of pacifism and nonviolence.
I like the phrase he once used to describe himself - "realistic pacifist."
I think you use some very Non-Violent people to make a point, none of them would make.
The Gandhi, Dali Lama or Martin Luther King would never go out and kill for non-violence.
They would attack Libya or drop an Atomic Bomb on Japan. This is simply polical will being used and a nation of sheep foolish enough to follow.
Peace is in the heart of each person. It cannot be created by bombing everyone with a bad heart. Bombing anyone is fool hardy for creating peace. That is a personal problem and nothing to do with World Peace. Non-Violent Resistence is direction of Gandhi and King. True you many not change the material world, you can only change yourself.
The cultivation of Peace is not the same as the Protection of Life. Yes, you cannot cultivate Peace through war....all you can do is discourage war through war. True peace is an inside job.
But---while Gandhi and MLK might not have resorted to violence themselves in the defence of Life---I think it is dogmatic to believe that they would have considered non-violence (for its own sake) in the face of senseless slaughter to be a virtue.
The Buddha certainly would not have. That is why the Buddhadharma is so frequently referred to a The Middle Path. Attachment to non-violence as an ideal is still attachment and wrong understanding.
Violence always creates bad karma. But sometimes Compassion and Wisdom require that the Bodhisattva willingly accept that bad karma.
Non-violent resistence only works when one is confronted with an opponent that is evolved himself enough to have a conscience. Because what non-violence does is allow the dissonance between that person's actions...and their own values...to prey upon their conscience. The shame and the guilt eventually motivate them to change their behavior.
But when you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill, or so personality disordered that they essentially have no conscience....non-violence simply will not work. Attempts to do make it work simply leads lambs to the slaughter. See Tienamen Square. Where non-violence lead to people being run over by tanks.
Or, you accept the bad karma, and realize that you sometimes have to put down a mad dog. But it is accepting an evil....to avoid a greater evil.
We are not bombing Libya to impose our will upon a nation like we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is akin to what we did in Kosovo, in an effort to prevent a senseless slaughter by those who are power hungry and without conscience.
First, I definitely agree with your assessment about the war on the working class. Dr. King's support of working people is well documented. I look forward to joining actions here in my state to support the aspirations of the working class.
However, I believe what Dr. King's response to a brutal dictator who is willing to turn the govt army against its own people is less known. Dr. King's was a pacifist but he was not against people protecting themselves from slaughter.
I think what you are sensing is what most progressive know, which is that France and our other European allies motives are not pure...they are there simply because they have financial interest. What I object too is the President allowing the US motives to be muddled. We are there for a huminatarian mission.
King was totally NON-VIOLENT. His non-violent resistence to change made him UNIQUE as the evolution of all the NON-VIOLENCE Gandhi taught.
Non-Violent Resistence is exactly what KINK would do against Gaddafi. Asumming he would join Nation State Killing is ignorant of MLK and his teachings.