Martin Luther King Jr.'s Unfinished Journey

1968 was a bleak and terrible year, when I was just six years old. Here is a list of some of the things that happened:

·        March 16, 1968 would be one of the low points of the Vietnam War when between 374-504 unarmed civilians were killed at My Lai by United States troops. 2nd Lt. William Calley was charged with 22 of the deaths and sentenced to life imprisonment, but only served three-and-a-half years of house arrest.

·        President Lyndon B. Johnson announced on March 31 that he would not be run for president in the 1968 election. 

·         April 4, 1968 Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated on the balcony of his Memphis motel room. Ironically, seven days later the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. 

·        Two months and a day after the assassination of Dr. King, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated while celebrating winning the California primary during his 1968 presidential bid.  

·         The Yippies, led by Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and other radical groups turned the streets of Chicago into a riot zone, battling Chicago police and U.S. Army and National Guard, while the Democratic convention was being held there.

·         Richard Nixon would go on to defeat Senator Humphrey in the general election.

***

Only one of those events is the focus of my commentary on this day, April 4^th. 

Fifty years ago, today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. The shot that was fired ended the life of Dr. King, but not his dream. To some extent, every step forward towards greater recognition and acceptance of the all the variables that define personhood owes Dr. King and all of his colleagues a huge debt of gratitude.

Although the Civil Rights Movement, in the hands of King and other principals, seemed to be drifting, due to disputes about strategy and the rise and disruption a militant black power movement, as other factors, such as the Vietnam War, and ongoing labor disputes all over the country, the signing Civil Rights Act was a seminal turning point for the entire nation.

But King sought more than this. The Civil Rights Act was only a beginning.  King had truly radical ideas, bordering on democratic socialism. He advocated for government-run national health, a national jobs program and guaranteed income for all Americans. That kind of economic vision would have been as much an uphill battle, to say the least, as the Vietnam War, in a time of recessions, government cut-back in public assistance services and a rising neo-liberal philosophy coming from the elite that advocated cutting taxes for the rich in order to help the poor.

But King saw that the only way to achieve any of these goals was for disparate groups to unite in coalition using non-violent demonstration toward growth and  inclusive outcomes, so that the greatest good, and equal opportunity could be achieved for all Americans. In his speeches to labor groups, he talked about servant-leadership. The American dream was about being truly egalitarian. Social Justices not for just one group, but for all groups.

The Civil Rights Act was but the first jewel in the crown. What King suggested, next, because of the overlapping issues, was joining Organized Labor and Civil Rights for People of color in coalition. After all, the March on Washington’s full title was “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” King and his colleagues knew that black workers and their lives were inextricably intertwine with the lives of white workers when it came to all issues of economic security and anti-discrimination. King’s rallying cry was, “All Labor Has Dignity.” But the stumbling block was that this was a battle not just about race, but also about class.

More than any other aspect of his radical thinking, this is what pulled the trigger on King, this day 50 years ago. King’s stance on Vietnam couldn’t have been enough to get him killed; but it was about Jim Crow and segregation, and specifically, poor white Southern labor was not going to stand for an educated and eloquent black man being the putative leader of a movement that combined race and class.

Here we are 50 years on, fighting the same battle, without King, without Ruether, without Abernathy and so many others who were critical to the movement in 1968.  We need to continue King’s journey without him. The future of our world depends on this, and this assertion is no mere hyperbole. Justice can only exist when there are no double standards, and when all people are treated with respect, dignity and equal access.

I may write on this topic more, as time goes by, but I’ll leave you with this excerpt from King's 1967 book, “Where Do We Go From Here; Chaos or Community”:

“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?

“The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity. Overwhelmingly America is still struggling with irresolution and contradictions. It has been sincere and even ardent in welcoming some change. But too quickly apathy and disinterest rise to the surface when the next logical steps are to be taken. Laws are passed in a crisis mood after a Birmingham or a Selma, but no substantial fervor survives the formal signing of legislation. The recording of the law in itself is treated as the reality of the reform.

This limited degree of concern is a reflection of an inner conflict which measures cautiously the impact of any change on the status quo. As the nation passes from opposing extremist behavior to the deeper and more pervasive elements of equality, white America reaffirms its bonds to the status quo. It had contemplated comfortably hugging the shoreline but now fears that the winds of change are blowing it out to sea.

“The practical cost of change for the nation up to this point has been cheap. The limited reforms have been obtained at bargain rates. There are no expenses, and no taxes are required, for Negroes to share lunch counters, libraries, parks, hotels and other facilities with whites. Even the psychological adjustment is far from formidable. Having exaggerated the emotional difficulties for decades, when demands for new conduct became inescapable, white Southerners may have trembled under the strain but they did not collapse.

“Even the more significant changes involved in voter registration required neither large monetary nor psychological sacrifice. Spectacular and turbulent events that dramatized the demand created an erroneous impression that a heavy burden was involved.

“The real cost lies ahead. The stiffening of white resistance is a recognition of that fact.”

First Amendment Convolutions

While reading my local paper, I came across the following letter to the editor:

It is disturbing that California's attorney general, Kamala Harris, believes that access to contraception trumps the First Amendment ("State questions corporations' religious rights," Nov. 11.). Religious business-owners should have the right to manage their own companies according to their most basic beliefs. The First Amendment does not simply guarantee the freedom to worship; it ensures "the free exercise thereof," which extends beyond Fridays at the mosque or Saturdays at the synagogue. Subtle attempts to undermine this guarantee to all Americans, masked in pernicious language like "regulatory obligations," should be what the attorney general is protecting us against, not standing up for.

This letter had been written by the pastor of a church. The name of the pastor, church and community from which this letter came are not important. It could have come from anywhere, been written by a religious leader of any denomination or faith.

This letter is clearly about denying rights to women. The pastor perhaps owns a business. Surely the church is not the business he owns, is it? Hopefully the employee in question is not a female church secretary…

What I find most interesting is the ironic twist accorded to the First Amendment. To me, it is clear that the author of the letter is unclear on the letter of the law, as well as a bit muddy on the tenets of his faith. The author of the letter seems to imply that the religious freedoms accorded by the First Amendment allow one person, in the context of practicing and keeping of their faith, to deny rights to another person.

This is, of course, not true under the letter of the law. This kind of confused thinking is what the separation of church and state is all about, and why it is essential. This is what the Women’s Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement, the LGBQ Movement and all of the Movements since, have reared up to remind us all. We should all be equally treated under the law. It could also be argued that we should all be treated equally under divine providence.

Your beliefs and your practices are yours. You are welcome to them. You cannot impose them on others. The First Amendment applies to individual conscience, not collective consciousness. The First Amendment allows you to say you don’t like contraception, and to rail against contraception and to campaign against contraception, but it does not entitle you, because you practice a certain religion that has dogma and doctrine against it, to deny any person the right to access, have and use contraceptives. Even if you are a business owner, your business cannot deny any worker access to contraceptives, whether you pay all or part of the insurance coverage for your employee or not. To do so is to disrespect and violate the privacy and rights of your employee, which surely is not what any divine being would require of you, in order for you to be a good person, ostensibly living a life of righteousness and equity.

You are free to exercise your right to be a dogmatic doctrinaire, even a misogynist; you just cannot impose your personal will, whether or not it is informed by your religion, on others—and that means not in the work place nor in your church.

Pernicious is the language that claims the golden rule, yet excludes people from the rights and dignity they should naturally be accorded. Pernicious is the hate hidden in a convoluted, conditional and inconsistent rhetoric of love. Pernicious is the morality that counsels, “You must do as I say, or you will go to Hell!” The First Amendment is not a club to be wielded against someone else.

I am grateful that the attorney general of California is holding people, religious and not, to their regulatory obligations under the law.

Mr. Pastor, sir, if you don’t want contraceptives, the Good News is you are not required to have or to use them. The bad news is, you can’t force others to do as you would do, not even your wife. It is none of your business what other people do with their health coverage, and why should it matter to you? The sad truth is it costs you nothing that someone else can obtain and use contraceptives. While you may believe that the use of contraceptives is ungodly, —    though how you would arrive at that conclusion I don't know, as the Bible does not mention them at all — you have no legal grounds by which to deny their availability to or use by anyone.