Martin Luther King

[Stinky The Clown]

It seems to me that Evangelicals and Democrats can find *much* common ground. Much more common ground than differences. In fact, our only breaches with them are on Choice and sexual equality. Some on their side say we're godless heathens. Some on our side say that the Cristians should just shut up. Both are wrong.

What is your view of one of the most famous Democrats?

[Terran1212]

1. Are you sure he can be called a Democrat?

I'd call him an independent.

[Radical Activist]

2. MLK preached the social gospel.

That's something most white, protestant evangelicals no longer embrace.

[melissinha]

3. other

MLK was an ordained member of the clergy who became a civil rights leader.

[jobycom]

4. An "All of the above" choice is appropiate. There's no denying the role

his faith played in his work. His speeches were not smothered in religious imagery, but the imagery was woven through it. The Mountaintop, the Dream speech, all powerful spiritual and Christian imagery.

I agree, there is no reason we shouldn't appeal to Evangelical Christians. Part of our problem is that too many of our side refuses to respect them. I'm an atheist, I have a lot of issues with prosyletizing believers, and I have the normal disdain for organized religion. Still, I don't let that spill over to my opinions of Christians themselves. I can disagree with them without hating them. We have to respect people if we want to win their votes. Even if we write off their votes, we should respect them. We will never win again if our whole agenda is to appeal to a small group of people. And frankly, I don't want to win under those terms. I'm a Dem because I believe we are the party of ALL people, Americans or otherwise. WE are the party of Truth, Justice, Equality, Liberty, for ALL people, even those who don't agree with us. The Repubs are the party of limited interests, of restrictions on people's rights, of forced beliefs, of America first, then white people first, then white Christians first, then white Christian males first, then "ME FIRST."

We should be the other party. At times around here, with all the hatred and sick nicknames hurled around, and all the insults of southerners and fundamentalists, and everyone else, I wonder if we really are any more. There's a Democratic Party represented here that's also a "ME FIRST" party, and I don't want to belong to it, even though it agrees with most of what I want to see happen. There's a bigger picture. We lose that too often. We'll never win until we remember that.

Alright, sorry for the sermon. Probably wrong, anyway, as usual.

[Stinky The Clown]

Well, if that was a sermon, then it gets

my 'amen'.

I guess that makes you and me a party of two.

[jobycom]

8. Thanks! I'm sure there are others, but not everyon can stand reading

through so much of my rambling to see what I'm saying. :rofl:

Yeah, I'm being a little self-effacing, but to be honest, I'm also trying to extend this tree to make more people read my post. Shameless how we can act humble when we are really being ego-hounds, eh? (And who's this "we?" I should say "me!") :rofl:

[PeaceProgProsp]

9. I have a CD of MLK speeches, and they actually are "smothered"

in religious imagery.

They're all sermons. Almost all his allegories are religious and his values were organized around the bible.

[rman]

5. I think there's more common ground between progressives and

left-wing religious groups/folks (of which MLK is a prime example).

"evangelicals" are typically associated with the RW reli-fundie movement - though probably *some* dems have common ground with those.

[Totally Committed]

6. The man LIVED HIS FAITH!

He was an outstanding human being AND a leader. He would be ASHAMED of the Fundies, and we all know it.

TC

[BeyondGeography]

7. Faith is what brought MLK to the civil rights movement

not the reverse.

It was his unwavering belief in a fair and just God that convinced him of the righteousness of his cause. When he assumed the leadership of the Montgomery bus boycott, he went so far as to suggest that the continuation of segregation would be tantamount to an endorsement of godlessness, which remains a message of awesome power:

<And we are not wrong, we are not wrong in what we are doing. (Well) If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. (Yes sir) If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. (Yes) If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. (That's right) If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to earth. (Yes) If we are wrong, justice is a lie: (Yes) love has no meaning. And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water (Yes) and righteousness like a mighty stream. (Keep talking) >

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol3/551205.0...

MLK would have certainly been appalled by the power of the fundies and the cynicism and emptiness of "faith-based" politics. That doesn't change the fact that his faith was what animated him in politics. It was the source of the moral and spiritual assertiveness that enabled him to change history for the better.