Inquiry 2: Letter from Birmingham Jail

This was an amazing piece of rhetoric, in my opinion. It's obvious that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was truly an intelligent man. From what I understand, he was actually from Atlanta (where things were a lot better) and went to Birmingham for the "Birmingham campaign". Although Atlanta had their own problems, he knew he had to attack the heart of the problem (Birmingham), if he was going to make any progress with solving civil rights inequalities in the U.S. This reminds me of the war against terrorism in a strange way. People over there (Afghanistan/Iraq) are so deprived of basic rights, especially women and children. However, they are too afraid/weak to fight for their rights, just like most minorities in Birmingham were. People always say it's not our problem whether they are free or not, but we need to help the citizens get control of their country from extremists. My brother is in Iraq right now and he said its a entirely different place, for the better, then it was when we first arrived. I know this is kind of random, but just like MLK helped fight the battle against segregation with his work in Birmingham, we are helping to fight the battle against Islamic Extremism with our work in the Middle East. We are slowly giving women and children their basic rights in those countries, while slowly giving our own country more security from extremists. Of course there are still major issues in that region, especially in Afghanistan, but hopefully we can one day get those people control of their countries again just like MLK helped get civil rights for minorities here in the U.S. This will not only helped them, but it will also help us just like the end of segregation helped the entire U.S., and not just "the South". This might seem like an impossible battle we are facing, but I wonder how many people thought it was possible that minorities would one day have all the basic civil rights granted to them?

Inquiry #2: MLK

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' King describes his views on the segregation issues that face much of the area and reasons for why segregation should be abolished. In the letter, King describes how he has been thrown in jail under means of an unjust law. He also goes into detail on why he broke segregation laws and how important it was that he and his fellow men did so. I'm sure this reading posed the same question for me as it did many others which is, what exactly is the difference between just and unjust laws? Also who decides wether or not this law is just? I agree with Dr. King that "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." However I understand how hard it must be for the white population to understand what it felt like to be cast away from society. I can relate because although I know there are problems in the world, I do nothing to try to fix them because I am content with the life I am living. I believe that this letter from Dr. King achieves exactly what he is trying to achieve, which is to let those who have not experienced segregation understand the demoralizing effects of it. So I ask, how do you think you would act in a similar situation as the white moderate; would you fight for what you know is right, or continue to do nothing about it because it has no affect on you?

Inquiry #2: Letter From Brimingham Jail

Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail was his attempt not only to clarify the reasoning behind his demonstrations but also to publicize his beliefs. I believe that he wrote his letter with the intentions of inspiring any “outsider” of society to take a stand. He states that, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” True justice cannot be attained amongst selfish people; the wellbeing of each individual must be taken into account.

King explains that “an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Often when laws are made, the minority isn’t considered. There will always be corruption, and without extremists, reforms are nearly impossible. As citizens of America, the aspects of life we tend to value most are the ones we’ve fought for. As my father says, “Anything worth having doesn’t come easy.” Passionate individuals are left to fight for those who can’t or won’t; it is up to these people to induce change.

Can pure equality and justice ever be established within the eyes of all the people? Probably not, as we each have varying perspectives, but it is surely something every country as a whole should strive for.

Inquiry #2:MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail

This was actually my first time reading Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail. Dr. King certainly used a great approach in convincing the audience of the clergymen. A combination of education, passion, determination, and love were the main ingredients in winning his historical argument.

In his letter, Martin Luther King states that the oppressor is not going to be the one to change for the better, but change should be demanded through the oppressed. Unfortunately it took the minority a couple of centuries to finally break the unjust ways of our government because of their adjustment to inferiority. The minorities were struggling to make a change, until Dr. King gave them the tools to make their dream of equality true.

What is justice? King emphasized on just and unjust ways of our government. He describes "unjust" as not justice at all. There is a plethora of views of the definition of "justice". It is a word that has been manipulated into what the government believes is right for the generation. It was justice for the government and unjust for the our minorities, but what about the white middle man? Dr. King explained their position and why they are not consider innocent bystanders. They were in the middle of the war to freedom yet did not stand for what they believed in because they were not effected at the time. This is an on going problem of America in the sense that natives believe they should not take risk if it did not concern or disturb their way of living which leaves the it difficult to achieve a better future. In order to make a change, King confronted the group that broke the barriers of the segregation. If the white middle man finally took a stand then the White conservative and government would take into consideration because there was relativity.

King also took a great approach by using non-violence protesting. Our world is immune to hate, which only brings more negativity. "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"-MLK. It took courage of a radical thinker to create such an ingenious method to initiate the break of hatred with love. Thats the most significant factor that governments lack.

With out Radical thinkers could our world move forward? Is time moving forward constructively or destructively?

Inquiry 2: "Letters from Birmingham Jail"

Alright, so first and foremost I wanted to comment that no matter which side you stand on, no one can doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. was a intelligent man. Not only was his letter very well written, but he quoted SO MANY different famous philosophers and the bible etc... That being said, the audience for MLK's letter was clearly meant for the clergy who had written the previous letters in the newspaper--and he was addressing the concept of social justice, or how he worded it "Just and unjust laws". I thought he made a good point in the way he distinguished the difference: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." He also continued to describe these differences with words like personality, natural and eternal laws, and the human soul. I also thought that he made a good point in when he was addressing the terms "wait", "extreme", and "non-violent" using references that would most appeal to a clergyman who follows Jesus Christ. I definitely think that MLK did a great job with catching the attention of everyone and having something that imposes thought instead of emotion. So, was MLK right by his actions and by his words? I think yes.

assignment 2: MLK Jr.

Dr. King's message is one of perseverance. Whilst those around him call for a temporary halt to their fight for equality, Dr. King rebuts by essentially paraphrasing William Gladstone's famous quote "Justice delayed is justice denied."

The letter's rebuttal of the arguments made by the 8 white clergymen offers an interesting perspective of the famed Civil Rights leader. Dr. King elevates civil disobedience as a moral issue, one which is a tenet of a democracy and as the greatest weapon against "unjust laws."

Interestingly enough, many of these same principles and teachings could be applied to other fights for equality here in the U.S. or in various other countries around the world.

-StephenRS

Assignment 2: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about taking action in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He states that “justice to long delayed is justice denied”. The men to whom this letter concerns where advising Dr. King to wait before taking action, because of the election of the new city administration. But Dr. King felt that he had waited long enough and did not see any other time in the future being any better than the present. Quite the opposite in fact, it seemed that he saw that if the African Americans of the south waited now then that just meant that more of them and their children would be abused and mistreated. Therefore by waiting justice would be denied for generations to come. He saw that God gave him the courage and ability to be the leader the nation needed to fight against unjust laws and racial inequality.
By deciding not to wait and being an activist Dr. King saved many African Americans from blatant discrimination. Similarly Thomas Jefferson gave our nation independence by acting when he knew he was right and writing the Declaration of Independence. Where would our nation be if activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Thomas Jefferson had waited? However, surely there are times in which we should wait instead of acting immediately, and where exactly is that balance?

Inquiry #2: Letter From Birmingham Jail

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote the Letter from Birmingham Jail in order to set a few critics straight. He took his time to answer this criticism because he felt it necessary to explain his actions. King explains that he was invited to Birmingham for a nonviolent direct action against the injustice of the Negro society. Dr. King felt that it was his duty to "spread the gospel of freedom" (155). He knew that the actions he must take should be relatively silent yet moving.

The issue is that of injustice or justice. King quotes St. Thomas Aquinas when determining the distinction between an unjust law or a just law. Laws are based mostly from the law of God. Even though King's audience is most likely involved in the church, what about those that do not have the same beliefs? How can laws be based upon the human personality and the law of God when not everyone sees these things in the same way?

King did a great job in getting his point across and explaining his plan and reasoning. However, people have different religious and political views that affect their decisions. People are afraid of change, especially if they have been raised a certain way and are set in those ways. Can people leave their comfort zones and adapt to a much needed change? Can they see the differences of a just law for them as an unjust law for another?

Inquiry #2: Dr. King

In a "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King classifies the Negro community into two groups. These "forces" fall into categories that come up in a later topic of extremes and they are the force of complacency versus the force of bitterness and hatred.
This made me wonder how Dr. King would join these two groups, fighting for the same cause, to come to some kind of agreement as to how they should resolve things. Did this cause discrepancies amongst the oppressed? He states that some of the middle class Negroes were just comfortable with the way things were so they did not feel the need to do anything about the unjust situation. This had to have outraged people that were not in the middle class, who suffered miserably but watched their "brothers" do nothing about it. While on the other hand, some people were filled with bitterness and hatred and wanted to take things in their own hands and most likely make things worse for themselves. How did Dr. King address these two very different groups of people and bring them together. And on the topic of extremes, what else would you expect in such a desperate situation. Does everyone have the inherent desire to turn to extremes if they feel like they have no other choice? And who is to blame that it even got to the point for people to consider such extremities?
Maybe the middle-class Negroes did care but they were too scared to say anything for fear or persecution. What would you do if you could possibly be beaten or arrested and seperated from your family if you stood up for complete strangers because it was right? I doubt that people who did act out of hatred were evil people. Perhaps they felt forced to act this way because there was no other way to bring attention to the evil that provoked what they felt they had to do. To what extremes will people to go to accomplish what they think is right?

Inquiry #2, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

During a tumultuous time in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. led the movement for civil rights in an honorable manner. At the time he wrote “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he had been thrown in jail for peacefully objecting to the racist Jim Crow laws of Alabama. He was responding to his fellow ministers in the area that were critical of him leading a movement that disturbed the status quo, even though they agreed with him in principle. Dr. King’s thoughts on just and unjust laws especially stood out to me. In the letter he goes over several examples of laws that were very obviously unjust, but what happens if the morality of the laws is not so clear? How do we decide that laws are just or unjust? At first one would say that moral laws are just and immoral laws are unjust. But what sets the guidelines for morality? Dr. King based most of his moral stance on the Christian Bible, but should the guidelines be based upon the views of the majority of the people in a population? Both of these options present problems. Christian values could be viewed as unjust by atheists or people of other religions, and throughout history, the story of the majority neglecting the needs of the minority continually repeats itself. So how does one know whether a law is just or unjust?

Inquiry #2 - MLK

Quite reminiscient of Paul, King wrote this letter from prison to his brothers in Christ in love but with the ultimate goal to rebuke them. King was burdened heavily because of the racial injustice that was so prevalent for centuries and the lack of compassion that those that shared his faith and those that were in government had shown. He knew that direct action was the only way to wake people up to the wrongs that were being tolerated and ignored on every level. I wonder, how would Martin Luther King Jr. respond today to the injustices around the world and even in our own backyard? When news is instantaneous, and with little effort we can read about all the wrongs that are happening all around the world are we just as indifferent and ignorant as the people in King's time? What are we doing right now for those, who just by circumstance, are less fortunate than us? How will we work to bring justice in our world? How will we respond to the great crisis' of our day? To sex-trafficking? To children being forced into armed combat? Defining and exploring the subject of justice is good and necessary, but in times such as these I believe there needs to be less meditation on meaning and more action.

Inquiry #2: A Letter From Dr. King

In the letter he wrote from prison, Dr. Martin Luther King responds to the criticisms of church officials towards his protests in Birmingham. He is being accused of moving things along too quickly and of being an “extremist,”.

King defends against this first attack by saying that justice can never be enacted too quickly. Being a clergyman, and addressing his fellow clergymen, he uses the word of God to back up his statements. The Bible demands swift justice, so perhaps this is where Dr. King got formed the basis of the idea that he expressed by quoting that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” (Letter From Birmingham Jail 158).

This second accusation, he first tries to explain away, saying that he is more of a moderate considering the violent extremists, and this itself would have been decent argument, but King goes further to say that he proudly accepts the label of “extremist.” Even today, there is a negative connotation attached to this word, but Dr. King had a point, that it’s not being an extremist that is bad, it’s what one is an extremist about. He provided legitimacy to this idea by providing examples of historical extremists who accomplished great things for the side of good.

What do Dr. King’s views on extremism mean for the Islamic world today? The idea being promoted by the media is that Islam is neutral and extremists are bad, but Dr. King’s philosophy would suggest vice-versa. A third option could be that it is merely the combination that is bad, but it can be surmised that being a clergymen in a nation that was very Christian at the time, that this was not Dr. King’s view.

It’s an interesting thought to look across time at the different groups that have arisen, and have fought for their rights, and to note that all of these movements were inspired by the movement that Reverend King headed. One must ask, then, should he still be alive today what would he think as he looked upon his legacy? Would Dr. King consider races to be equal in America today? There is an idea that some people use their race as a crutch. Perhaps King would join the ranks of Bill Cosby in trying to remove this crutch while promoting the prosperity of African Americans through hard work instead of welfare. He was a man who believed in true equality, not just to try and get ahead, and whatever he decided to do, this is what he would work towards.

Inquiry #2 King

The law can be corrupt at times. The law will mean one thing, and contradict itself. So yes, there are laws that will oppose, but occassionally confuse society because of the action taken behind that particular law. Instead of letting their yes mean yes, and their no mean no, the law will ignore true injustices, and create scapegoats in the effort to justify any situation. Martin Luther King wrote an outstanding essay. King wasn't just concern with one specific race receiving justice, but rather his moral standing desired to combat all forms of injustices. So now the question is: Since the law contained several contradictions, would protesting be the only, and most way effective to erase injustices?

Inquiry 2: The King

Dr. Martin Luther King was a man who did not stand by and do nothing in the face of injustice. King had a clear definition of what justice meant to him and fought for a country where this idea of justice was implemented. When King wrote the letter from Birmingham jail he was writing a call to action. King wanted the participants in the movement to never become complacent, to remain vigilant and always fight for what was right and just.
I believe that King's letter is relevant in today's society. Media attention focuses on the extremes of American politics while the majority remains in the middle and receives the least amount of attention. This middle group are the people who make the decisions in theory because there are more of them. As King points out, these are also the most complacent group of people, unwilling to change the status quo because they have comfortable lives. The paragraphs in Kings speech that called these people to task and challenged them to make a difference was the part of the letter that I found the most inspiring. I think that if more people were called to task for their apathy then we would have a more just society.

Inquiry #2: King

"The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust."

This statement in itself is so strong and so very true. There are those laws that were written that actually mean something, that include fairness for those in our society, and are based on the idea that everyone is created equal and are not to be denied their basic rights as American citizens. I found Dr. King's words to be moving, having not read this letter before; an eye-opener if you will. It is hard to believe that citizens of the United States were denied their rights even as close as the 1960s. We now live in a country where, everyone in my generation at least, are given those birthrights (not to say that there aren't social prejudices still in existence or that everyone agrees with such terms).

But the question of what justice really means is still pondered in King's letter. He believed in doing what was morally right, what he felt to be 'just', whether it abides the laws of this country or not. When he stated that if he was in Germany during the Holocaust that he would have hidden his Jewish brothers, because he felt it to be morally right; that if you are breaking unjust laws to do it for just reasons, for fair treatment for all of humanity. In essence, we are our own law makers aside from the laws that bound us to our country; even though the laws are there, moral laws should kick in at some point in one's life. What do you stand for? What depicts social justice? Laws that are man-made to help the majority of the population, although it could suppress the minority? Or is it the code that squares with moral law or the law of God?

To me the answer is obvious, but yet, even in today's society fair treatment for all is sometimes hard to come by. Why? Any law that degrades human personality is unjust, why wouldn't an action be the same way? Meaning this is seen in our everyday lives. We still struggle with the previous question.....'how should one live?' and what does 'social justice' really entail?

In King's words, "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be? Will we be extremists for love or for hate?"

Assignment: Inquiry #2 Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King's ideas and actions changed America. He challenged the law and leaders in order to gain equality for African Americans. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he explained his thought process, and why he felt the need to carry-out nonviolent demonstrations to promote his cause.

The part that made me understand his Letter and point of view the most was the part that said, "I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to disobey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." African Americans during this time did not get to experience the "Central Human Capabilities" that Nussbaum discussed in the previous reading.

It had to have been so aggravating and disheartening to know in your heart something was right, when the rest of the world was telling you otherwise. And, like he said, it was the moderate people, who agreed with Martin Luther King, who disappointed him the most. They knew King was right, but they didn't have the guts to stand-up and agree with him.

Question:

Martin Luther King did an excellent job of explaining himself and giving examples for people to relate to. How could many religious and political leaders not agree with his words and work?

I feel like the problem Martin Luther King had happens to other people every day in this country. I know that a lot of people are scared of change and are very set in their ways. But, a lot of times I think people go off of what higher-ups say without really thinking on their own. Someone can see things how they should be, and explain something so well. But, until other people change and think on their own, will things really change.

Assignment #2

Martin Luther King Jr. was in jail in Birmingham when he wrote a letter to people questioning him about the timing and need for a direct-action movement. He states that it was necessary to do this to get the government's attention. The white conservative was neither with him nor against him, but also wondered why they were uprising against the peace and thought that this should be a properly timed occurrence. Martin Luther King did not like the lukewarm people; for if they were to wait for the "right" opportunity then that time may not come. It was necessary to get the attention of the newly elected officials so that change would come; so that segregation would be stopped and black people could live along side their brothers without this hate.
He went about this in a proper manner, with no violence, but merely the idea that all men were actually made equal.
What could he have done differently to get segregation to stop?