MLK and the churches behind him

[temporal1]

PetrC:
Well, all this is bygone. What aches us now:

the same old fallen nature has not disappeared.
the same old sins damage and destroy.

MLK Jr’s worst mistake was (i believe) inadvertantly leading his flock to seek after government (not God) for answers.

MLK Jr was fully human and a sinner.
i don’t believe he intended the destruction of faith and family and churches that followed his death, even in his name.

What interests me is above all:
Can Christians be re-seduced to support Bolshevism a second time? And I think that yes, they can.

Mostly by the promise of "social harmony" without all those nasty conflicts we have in Western countries.
And most Christians will not look too deep into how thiat social harmony is made (namely by suppression).

I just found Phil Gorski's definition of a "democratic citizen" as someone who is "working with others to pursue the common good".
That's just that trap, appealing to a (typically Christian) wish for social harmony.

i agree, repetition of sins+crimes, errors, is common to mankind. It requires vigilance to resist.
God is patient, He want all to repent and submit to Him. 2Peter3:9 https://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-9.htm

i agree, too, Christians long for social harmony, many attempts (at utopias) have been made over time.
it can be a trap.

on earth, authentic faith is never “done.” it’s a work in progress, it requires vigilance. 1Peter5:8 https://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm

PetrC,
This is your thread, your OP, i understand your interest to be about God, Christian faith, works, humankind?
i wince when presumptions, arguments, “facts” are presented which swirl around, “IT HAD TO BE” this or that human law, for whatever reason given, IT HAD TO BE, IT HAS TO BE. It’s a command to bully thoughts+discussions, it quickly leads to all manner idol worship. Christians beware.

Christians believe: No. It doesn’t (have to be such+such). God provides in all circumstances.

God promises He is ever-present, ever offering His way, ever providing. Which often doesn’t look like human reasoning.
He is present at all times. Scriptures reflect this throughout.

On the matter of MLK and U.S. history, no study can be complete without inclusion of a heavy dose of THOMAS SOWELL,
who was a black adult in the 1960’s; older than me, but like me, he came out of poverty, unlike me, he went on to acquire a great education, became a bonafide economist and academic, he has written a number of books, and, fortunately, has a number of interviews on videos.

TS was born 1930-living, MLK Jr 1929-1968. They were contemporaries.
MLK Jr did not live to see outcomes of his life. TS has written a lot about those outcomes.

To repeat, no study of this period can honestly be accomplished without ample inclusion of Thomas Sowell.

Equity: Thief of human potential - Thomas Sowell
viewtopic.php?t=5505

Thomas Sowell
viewtopic.php?t=4508

(PRESENTISM) Bill Maher
viewtopic.php?t=5045

i was a young teen in the 60’s, i went to culturally and racially mixed public schools, lived in a racially mixed neighborhood.
my father was mysteriously deathly ill for a year when i was 13-14, i didn’t follow politics, but was aware of some puzzling things happening in the world around me - things based on race that were puzzling. We students and neighbors were being formally divided, based on skin color. In the name of equity/equality. Because of bad things that happened (in the south?)

It was so odd (for me, personally). i was so young, trying to live a double life. At home, extreme duress, at school, working hard (including working hard to not reflect duress at home). There were no food stamps or other in those days. It was puzzling to see some classmates suddenly be separated out as different. i got permission to begin working at the nearby hospital the day i turned 14. Also a mixed environment, employees and patients!

It was not utopia! There were occasional clashes, like, boys fighting after school, etc. Everyone was expected to behave and perform in school, obey laws. Divorce was taboo and uncommon across the board. Across cultures and faiths, basic morality was similar enough that public schools and the public arena worked well.

The U.S. was never one homogenous country with one narrative for all. Never like Japan, Sweden, or Ethiopia.
The closest to that might have been REGIONAL differences .. much based on climate and geography and local economies, not race.

i have no idea if Thomas Sowell is a man of faith. He is intelligent, thoughtful, moral. Brave. Not motivated by greed.
He has sacrificed a lot to maintain his own opinions and observations. Riches, fame, personal and family safety. Really sad to think.

There are lots of others. His volume of work, its approachable presentation, makes him a cornerstone for study.

Scriptures assure Christians, God is present in all circumstances. No government can rightly claim, “It has to be our way.”
Only small-thinking persons claim, IT HAD TO BE, IT HAS TO BE. Words like this scream lack of faith in God our Creator.

[MaxPC]

Greed/covetousness are protected by American law, they are not banned. And original and current government policies encouraged them. Think about what the impact it would have on our economy if the government actually instituted policies to combat these problems. It would be hugely impactful.
And we can't say that the non-existence of greed laws are different than actual existing laws, because as far as I know, there were no anti-slavery laws either. And in the absence, both greed and slavery were permitted by default.

Again, focus on the word "original". What is it supposed to communicate in context?
Let me repeat:
1. Both slavery and genocide were existing prior to the founding of the US. I assume that you are more familiar with The 1619 Project than I am. The US proclaimed independence in 1776. How many years difference is that? Also, why did the Revolutionary War start? It certainly wasn't because England was putting the brakes on westward expansion. Nor was is because England wanted to outlaw slavery. Can you point to any founding documents that support the idea that this country was established in order to take Indian lands, and to protect slavery? Anything documentation similar to what is available from the Civil War?
2. Europeans did not decide to come to America so that they could have a place to practice racism. They came to get rich, and for religious freedom. That is why Europeans came, and one of those reason is why Christopher Columbus was sailing in the first place. Everything else flowed out of those.

You are expending a lot of energy arguing that slavery and Indian removals happened, and that we still deal with them today. Again, that is not the argument. The State of Oregon didn't even exist in 1776. I think it was under Indian and French control. So clearly, it is impossible for anything the State of Oregon did to be held up as proof of "Americas Original Sins". Can you better explain how Oregon's much later racist laws, should be construed as evidence of the original sins of the original 13 colonies?

In fact, one could easily argue that Americas Original Sins are greed and violence. The right to bear arms is the second amendment. I don't think the right to take Indian lands and the right to enslave people are at all. Meanwhile the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, and complains that the King cut off their trade and taxed them, and they complain that the King was bringing the Indians to their frontiers. Obviously acted despicable in spite of these written sentiments. Nonetheless, these written documents are the reference points for the direction the new country would later take. What difference it may have been if, the nation was truly build upon slavery and genocide, and these two sins might have been written in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

But I think the very simple truth is merely that these writers who first coined the phrase did it more for "stickiness" and less for lack of stronger sins. They started with the topics, and then searched for a phrase to bring attention, and to sell the importance. They did not start with a blank slate, and try to identify the most original and unique sins that America was founded on. We all know that these are books that are written for purposes other than to accurately determine the two worst unique sins.

We've always known the very well documented reasons that America was founded, and the principles were written down. We don't have to guess, or have revisionist come 250 years later and say well, actually.... and proceed to enlighten folks on what really was going on.
If its uniqueness, then I'd say freedom, religious freedom, and economic opportunity. If it is unique original sins that we are looking for, there is probably plenty to choose from, but I'd say rebellion, and greed, and violence. These are the things that drove America to become a country. And with or without further westward expansion, and with or without slavery, these other things were present and are really what cause America to be born.

You think that if America stopped expanding westward, and didn't have slavery, then the USA wouldn't have been born?

Indeed; even the book title was created for the purpose of profit. Controversy sells more books and controversial titles draw attention to the book. It has been a problem among academics for a few decades, this desire to profit from one’s writings. Once again, becoming wealthy is motivation.

[PetrChelcicky]

Ken,
I have read a lot of accounts by white pupils who were "included" into black schools. The only positive accounts are from persons who chose so voluntarily. (E.g. David Cole, a smart but lazy boy, chose a black school because he knew he would have to do less work there; he also was smart enough to chose his friends wisely and avoid the bad apples.)
Practically every person who was forced into a black school reported bad experiences. Which means that race relations became in fact worse, not better.
The reason seems to be that only a small middle class of Blacks really thrived for a "white education" (and of course it would have been good to open up the white schools for those particular pupils). Whereas a lot af black pupils were and are strongly adverse to it and their parents at least disinterested.
The fault of the liberal churches was to overestimate the few Blacks they saw and to underestimate the many Blacks they did not see.
The same happened with different results in the second great cause: open up the white stores. Most white liberal churchpersons had never seen a black shopkeeper and therefore did not ponder what would become of them - in fact their number was greatly diminished. I don't demand that Blacks should have been excluded from white stores only for to save the black shopkeepers - but in fact a rise of the black population could not happen without a class of black business men. The world can't continue only with clerks (preachers included) without business men, and whoever wanted the Blacks to rise upwards should have tried to solve that problem.

Why am I, as an outsider, interested in all this? When I first took part in American blogs I detected two great American nostalgia's. The first nostalgia is the neocon nostalgia for a repetition of WW2. Fighting and winning a great war, "making the world safe for democracy" and starting a "New American Century". The second nostalgia is the leftist nostalgia for the repetition of the Civil Rights Movement: fighting and winning a "non-violent" fight for a "good cause", starting a new era as well. Both have a lot to do with people being depressed by their everyday life and dreaming about a better life in high spirits. (But a Christian should help people in matters where they actually long for help; he need not live in high spirits).
Now WW2 was at least successful (even if the neocons, imho, overestimate the value of violence in it). But the CR Movement was not much of a success. Blacks and Whites got to know each other (somewhat) better, but did not like each other better. So, repeating the Civil Rights Movement without asking "Why did it go wrong last time" would be an unfortunate move.

[temporal1]

PetrC,
A side thought about your topic’s subject line:

MLK and the churches behind him

It struck me, “What church?”
When people think about MLK Jr, they think about human law, civil rights, which morphed into “human rights” as defined by human law, whether by his plan or not, his memory is inseparable from human law. Seeking after government for human crafted solutions.

In the process, many churches leaned right into it. Politics and human law. It’s all big business now. Many have made fortunes, more+more fortunes are promised. $$$$

It’s sad.
What would he and his father think if they revisited now? What would they think of the churches that followed?
Government holidays? Government buildings and highways, etc.? History lessons?

Establishment of churches followed different men in history. Menno Simons was one. (Not his plan or hope!)
Human law followed MLK Jr. What was his plan, or hope?

[Bootstrap]

From the OPB Klan video introduction: “It (The KKK) was basically a money making organization”.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Not slavery, manifest destiny, not white supremacy.

But that isn’t really a politically expedient thing to say in America.

Aren't slavery, manifest destiny, and white supremacy all forms of the love of money?

[Ken]

Ken,
I have read a lot of accounts by white pupils who were "included" into black schools. The only positive accounts are from persons who chose so voluntarily. (E.g. David Cole, a smart but lazy boy, chose a black school because he knew he would have to do less work there; he also was smart enough to chose his friends wisely and avoid the bad apples.)
Practically every person who was forced into a black school reported bad experiences. Which means that race relations became in fact worse, not better.
The reason seems to be that only a small middle class of Blacks really thrived for a "white education" (and of course it would have been good to open up the white schools for those particular pupils). Whereas a lot af black pupils were and are strongly adverse to it and their parents at least disinterested.
The fault of the liberal churches was to overestimate the few Blacks they saw and to underestimate the many Blacks they did not see.
The same happened with different results in the second great cause: open up the white stores. Most white liberal churchpersons had never seen a black shopkeeper and therefore did not ponder what would become of them - in fact their number was greatly diminished. I don't demand that Blacks should have been excluded from white stores only for to save the black shopkeepers - but in fact a rise of the black population could not happen without a class of black business men. The world can't continue only with clerks (preachers included) without business men, and whoever wanted the Blacks to rise upwards should have tried to solve that problem.

Why am I, as an outsider, interested in all this? When I first took part in American blogs I detected two great American nostalgia's. The first nostalgia is the neocon nostalgia for a repetition of WW2. Fighting and winning a great war, "making the world safe for democracy" and starting a "New American Century". The second nostalgia is the leftist nostalgia for the repetition of the Civil Rights Movement: fighting and winning a "non-violent" fight for a "good cause", starting a new era as well. Both have a lot to do with people being depressed by their everyday life and dreaming about a better life in high spirits. (But a Christian should help people in matters where they actually long for help; he need not live in high spirits).
Now WW2 was at least successful (even if the neocons, imho, overestimate the value of violence in it). But the CR Movement was not much of a success. Blacks and Whites got to know each other (somewhat) better, but did not like each other better. So, repeating the Civil Rights Movement without asking "Why did it go wrong last time" would be an unfortunate move.

News flash: "Black schools" and "White Schools" haven't been a thing in the US since 1954. That is 70 years ago.

Can you find examples of bussing in the 1960s and 1970s? Sure. That was largely a court-ordered remedy for school districts that flagrantly refused to desegregate using voluntary means and so the courts were forced to take action. And again, that was 40-50 years ago.

And what is this business about Black stores and White stores? That is the language of Jim Crow. Maybe you should visit the US and see how things actually are.

[temporal1]

PetrC:
It’s interesting reading opinions/observations that haven’t been forced through the lib PC sieve.
Plus, the challenges of cross-cultural dialogue and languages. Thanks. Much appreciated.

[joshuabgood]

Whereas a lot af black pupils were and are strongly adverse to it and their parents at least disinterested.

Really??? And how would you have come to that knowledge?

[Szdfan]

Whereas a lot af black pupils were and are strongly adverse to it and their parents at least disinterested.

Really??? And how would you have come to that knowledge?

This thread illustrates the problem of talking about race on a forum dominated by white people. There are some rather racist assumptions about what black people want or don't want by participants who have no idea what they're talking about.

[Josh]

Whereas a lot af black pupils were and are strongly adverse to it and their parents at least disinterested.

Really??? And how would you have come to that knowledge?

This thread illustrates the problem of talking about race on a forum dominated by white people. There are some rather racist assumptions about what black people want or don't want by participants who have no idea what they're talking about.

… and what makes either you or joshuabgood designated representatives who can explain to use what “black people want” (as if they’re some amorphous entity and not individuals and all have identical desires and wants)?

I think calling temporal1 “racist” is in bad faith and you should immediately retract your accusation. She is not racist at all.