Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , William Wilberforce, and Christianity

[Achilles]

King did read Gandhi, admired the man, and even quoted him, but King was motivated largely by his faith in Christ to do what he did.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point. I don't believe that "inspiration" works on the scarcity model or that people can only be "largely influenced" by one source. As always, I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

 

His speeches and sermons (since he was a pastor) are filled with Biblical references, and his non-violence policy was based on Christ's example, as he stated.

Yep, I'm aware of this. I've heard all of Dr. King's speeches (well, the ones we have recordings of anyway). But the fact is that jesus was not the only game in town when it came to non-violence and we know that he was influenced by at least one other source. We can certainly branch this off into another thread, if you'd like, but for the purposes of the point I was making with regards to this topic, I think my point stands.

 

Within the context of the culture and community of that time, King could not have done what he did without the backing of the Christian community of all races.

Probably true, but again, it seems irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

Malcolm X tried to accomplish black rights through the black Muslim community but could not achieve what King and other leaders were able to accomplish.

I suppose the militant nature of the Muslim Brotherhood had no impact on that.

[Jae Onasi]

Sigh. @ Garfield: Let me clarify. Faith was a driving factor in King's particular method of non-violent protest in the Civil Rights movement. Many people believed that 'all men are created equal', but it was Christ's non-violent example that served as the basis for King's actions.

 

@Achilles--if you've listened to all his speeches (and I would recommend to everyone reading them too, especially in historical context with the particular events of the day), along with his biographies and autobiography, then you know that he speaks of Christ as his inspiration and entreated many to follow Christ's non-violent example and have faith in Him. He was Christian, Christ was his example. He did study Gandhi to see how he accomplished what he did in India, but he stated frequently he relied on his faith in Christ to give him strength and courage to do what he did in the Civil Rights movement. Note that I'm stating what he believed, I'm not debating whether or not you think that's correct, just for clarity's sake.

 

As for Malcolm X, I'm sure his violent methods didn't help. However, being Muslim in a predominantly Christian nation made it nigh on impossible for him to accomplish the same things King was able to as a Christian.

 

Skinwalker can split the thread as he desires--doesn't matter to me either way.

[Achilles]

but it was Christ's non-violent example that served as a basis for King's actions.

fixed.

 

If you're going to insist on knowing Dr. King's motivation (as opposed to speculating), I'm going to have to have ask for sources.

[GarfieldJL]

Sigh. @ Garfield: Let me clarify. Faith was a driving factor in King's particular method of non-violent protest in the Civil Rights movement. Many people believed that 'all men are created equal', but it was Christ's non-violent example that served as the basis for King's actions.

 

Jae, I wasn't responding to one of your posts, I responded to one of Achilles posts and contributed to a post Obi made.

 

I'm not sure how this refutes my point. I don't believe that "inspiration" works on the scarcity model or that people can only be "largely influenced" by one source. As always, I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary.

 

How about the fact that Dr. King was a Christian Minister... I'd say that indicates that Dr. King was probably influenced by faith...

[EnderWiggin]

Jae, I wasn't responding to one of your posts, I responded to one of Achilles posts and contributed to a post Obi made.

 

She was trying to help you to understand the point which you just missed. Twice.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

@ Achilles

Also for the record, Dr. King was a Christian Pastor, so it's safe to say that Dr. King was probably a Christian...

I don't recall calling into question his religious affiliation.

 

EDIT: @sub-topic

 

This is hardly an academic source, but anyone wanting a primer on the discussion may find this helpful.

[Jae Onasi]

Sources--his biographies (there are numerous good ones). His speeches. His sermons. His books. His autobiography. The King papers. The papers housed at the LBJ library that discuss him (he was the subject of much government investigation, as you can well imagine). The King Center. See the links I posted above. It's about as easy to separate Christ from King as it is to separate Christ from the Gospels.

 

One of many sources from the King papers.

 

At present I still feel the affects of the noble moral and ethical ideals that I grew up under. They have been real and precious to me, and even in moments of theological doubt I could never turn away from them. Even though I have never had an abrupt conversion experience, religion has been real to me and closely knitted to life. In fact the two cannot be separated; religion for me is life.

 

Your "source" on Gandhi and King--lovely feel-good article by a former Indian Ambassador-turned-journalist (no bias there of course), not scholarly at all. There is no documentation for the quotes listed.

 

Anyone who wants a _good_ history of King should look up any of the many scholarly historical books written about him, and cross-reference it with his speeches and the documents housed at the King Center, Stanford, and LBJ Library.

[Achilles]

It's about as easy to separate Christ from King as it is to separate Christ from the Gospels.

Is that what we're discussing? If not, then it seems you're introducing a strawman.

 

No one is arguing that Dr. King was not religious. The questions that I raised can be found back in post #12 if you would like to address them. The track you're on now appears to be addressing some other argument.

 

Your "source" on Gandhi and King--lovely feel-good article by a former Indian Ambassador-turned-journalist (no bias there of course), not scholarly at all. There is no documentation for the quotes listed.

I suppose it's a good thing that I never claimed that it was then. I offered an intro to those that might not know that much about Dr. King or his influences. If I thought the conversation warranted more than that I would have done something other than Google "MLK Gandhi" and posted the first result that came back.

 

Anyone who wants a _good_ history of King should look up any of the many scholarly historical books written about him, and cross-reference it with his speeches and the documents housed at the King Center, Stanford, and LBJ Library.

Indeed.

 

Is the argument that they wouldn't find any ties between Dr. King and Gandhi if they did? If not, then I suspect that this is yet another strawman. Please clarify.

 

Thanks!

[Jae Onasi]

Is that what we're discussing? If not, then it seems you're introducing a strawman.

That's the OP's call.

 

No one is arguing that Dr. King was not religious. The questions that I raised can be found back in post #12 if you would like to address them. The track you're on now appears to be addressing some other argument.

I went with the discussion on an interesting bifurcation. No, I don't think King would have been the kind of leader he was without his faith, and no, the civil rights movement would not have been the same had he not been a Christian pastor in a Christian black community galvanizing people to act in the name of Christ's love to overturn an unjust institution. I'm not entirely certain if that could be accomplished in today's society, as an aside.

 

I suppose it's a good thing that I never claimed that it was then. I offered an intro to those that might not know that much about Dr. King or his influences. If I thought the conversation warranted more than that I would have done something other than Google "MLK Gandhi" and posted the first result that came back.

This is an area of special interest for me. Crap links aren't going to cut it for me on the history of King and the civil rights movement, just like crap links don't cut it for you, either. If you're going to call me out for sourcing, don't try to post non-historical garbage and expect me not to comment on the poor source quality.

 

Is the argument that they wouldn't find any ties between Dr. King and Gandhi if they did? If not, then I suspect that this is yet another strawman. Please clarify.

You and I both know that King found Gandhi's methods of use in the civil rights movement, and why you would try to imply otherwise when I've talked in two separate posts above about Gandhi's influence on King's methods is bizarre. If you're going to quote about the influence of Gandhi's nonviolence on King's policies of non-violence, at least find something better than an article by a guy who doesn't even know how to cite sources (or a website owner that doesn't know how to include them if the journalist did originally cite them).

[Achilles]

That's the OP's call.

The OP doesn't get to decide whether or not your argument is a strawman. If you and I are dialoging about X and then you present a counter-argument as though we were discussing Y, then it's a strawman. We may discuss Y at some point, but for the sake of our discussion involving X, the Y argument is unrelated.

 

I went with the discussion on an interesting bifurcation. No, I don't think King would have been the kind of leader he was without his faith, and no, the civil rights movement would not have been the same had he not been a Christian pastor in a Christian black community galvanizing people to act in the name of Christ's love to overturn an unjust institution. I'm not entirely certain if that could be accomplished in today's society, as an aside.

This largely addresses the circumstance in which he acted. I was more interested in his motivation.

 

The argument that I thought I heard the OP making (and which I seem to be hearing here as well) is that Dr. King would have had no interest in the civil rights movement had it not be for his belief in jesus. A reoccuring argument that I hear from theists is that non-theist are incapable of moral reasoning or moral involvment. If that is the arguement that you would like to make, then I would like to discuss that, rather than whether or not he needed to appeal to the circumstances in order to accomplish what he did.

 

This is an area of special interest for me. Crap links aren't going to cut it for me on the history of King and the civil rights movement, just like crap links don't cut it for you, either. If you're going to call me out for sourcing, don't try to post non-historical garbage and expect me not to comment on the poor source quality.

And had I been sourcing, your argument would have significant merit. However as I stated before and I will state again here, I'm simply providing an introduction for those not familiar with the history.

 

It seems as though you want to introduce the claim that Gandhi had no influence on Dr. King without actually making it. If you accept that Gandhi had some influence on King, then we can move on. If you want to deny this or try to minimize it because you feel it helps your argument some how, then we can continue on the track we're on now. Just keep in mind that quotes that mention jesus don't tell me anything about Gandhi.

 

If you really want to make your case, please present a quote something along the lines of "Yeah, Gandhi was cool and all, but he was like, number 57 on my list. Jesus? He was definitely in the top 5". While it's possible such a quote exists, I suspect that it's highly unlikely, hence my bewilderment at why you would wish to make such a huge issue out of this and take a stance which seems almost impossible for you to defend.

 

You and I both know that King found Gandhi's methods of use in the civil rights movement, and why you would try to imply otherwise when I've talked in two separate posts above about Gandhi's influence on King's methods is bizarre.

I'm sorry, why I would try to imply what?

 

If you acknowledge Gandhi's influence, then I suppose I'm confused as to why you seem to want to minimize or dismiss it.

 

If you're going to quote about the influence of Gandhi's nonviolence on King's policies of non-violence, at least find something better than an article by a guy who doesn't even know how to cite sources (or a website owner that doesn't know how to include them if the journalist did originally cite them).

Indeed. If I make an argument that requires sourcing, I will be sure to keep this advice in mind. Thanks you.

[Jae Onasi]

The OP doesn't get to decide whether or not your argument is a strawman. If you and I are dialoging about X and then you present a counter-argument as though we were discussing Y, then it's a strawman. We may discuss Y at some point, but for the sake of our discussion involving X, the Y argument is unrelated.

I thought your point was directed at the OP originally. I did go off on a tangent, and I apologize for the confusion. The OP states that Christians get blamed for the evil done in the name of Christianity but not credit when Christians do positive things in the name of Christ. If non-Christians are going to slam Christians for the bad things, then they should acknowledge when good things are done. If not, it's hypocritical. If your argument is that these good things are done whether or not someone was Christian, then why does that not apply to the bad things also? You can't blame but then not give credit when it's due. It seems to me that atheists (not necessarily those here, to be clear) like to pick and choose what to blame or give credit for, and there's no rational basis for that.

 

This largely addresses the circumstance in which he acted. I was more interested in his motivation.

Social justice, love for mankind based on the love Christ showed us, his experience with racism at a young age, and assorted other experience the source documents describe.

 

The argument that I thought I heard the OP making (and which I seem to be hearing here as well) is that Dr. King would have had no interest in the civil rights movement had it not be for his belief in jesus.

That's not the argument I heard, so I think we're on two different tracks, then. I'm hearing 'if Christians are getting blamed for things like religious wars, they should be getting credit for good things done in the name of Christ.' I think we end up doing this a little too often--we think each of us are arguing the same thing when we're off on subtle differences, and I'd like to avoid frustration/contempt issues based on misunderstandings over what we're actually talking about. I'll try to remember to ask if we're on the same page. If you could take that as a legit question on clarification instead of me trying to be a smartass, please, I would appreciate that.

 

A reoccuring argument that I hear from theists is that non-theist are incapable of moral reasoning or moral involvment. If that is the arguement that you would like to make, then I would like to discuss that, rather than whether or not he needed to appeal to the circumstances in order to accomplish what he did.

Why would I want to make that argument? You and other atheists are certainly capable of doing positive things. Theists get underlying moral justification for acts confused with the acts themselves, Zacharias discusses the philosophical basis for morality far better than I ever could if you really want to pursue that for your own interest. However, that's not a direction I want to go in. You and I suck at discussing religion with each other in a civil manner so I'd just rather we avoided the subject as much as possible.

 

And had I been sourcing, your argument would have significant merit. However as I stated before and I will state again here, I'm simply providing an introduction for those not familiar with the history.

Let's give them some good, solid information, then, please, rather than something like this, since both of us appear to enjoy educating when people are interested in the topic.

 

It seems as though you want to introduce the claim that Gandhi had no influence on Dr. King without actually making it.

Well, I said three time now that King read Gandhi and utilized his methods. I'm kind of confused why you're thinking I'm making the claim in that case.

 

If you accept that Gandhi had some influence on King, then we can move on. If you want to deny this or try to minimize it because you feel it helps your argument some how, then we can continue on the track we're on now. Just keep in mind that quotes that mention jesus don't tell me anything about Gandhi.

 

If you really want to make your case, please present a quote something along the lines of "Yeah, Gandhi was cool and all, but he was like, number 57 on my list. Jesus? He was definitely in the top 5". While it's possible such a quote exists, I suspect that it's highly unlikely, hence my bewilderment at why you would wish to make such a huge issue out of this and take a stance which seems almost impossible for you to defend.

It is possible to look through documents and determine the amount of influence of both Christ and Gandhi by looking at how many times both are referenced. The lion's share of quotes that King makes in speeches, sermons, and his books are from Christ or the Bible, not Gandhi. If you count up the references (which someone may have done), you'll find your answer on who had more influence on him. It's an indirect measure, but that makes it no less valid than the quote you're asking for.

 

I'm sorry, why I would try to imply what?

You're implying that I'm arguing Gandhi had no influence. I don't know why, and don't know why you're continuing this line of thought.

 

If you acknowledge Gandhi's influence, then I suppose I'm confused as to why you seem to want to minimize or dismiss it.

I'm confused why you're wanting to make the influence equivalent to Christ, but I'm beginning to think we're arguing about something that is way off on a tangent from what we're actually trying to get to. If we want to skip this as not what's germaine to the argument, I'm OK with that.

[Achilles]

I thought your point was directed at the OP originally. I did go off on a tangent, and I apologize for the confusion. The OP states that Christians get blamed for the evil done in the name of Christianity but not credit when Christians do positive things in the name of Christ.

That seems like a difficult argument to support.

 

If non-Christians are going to slam Christians for the bad things, then they should acknowledge when good things are done.

I believe that all good things deserve to be acknowledged. I guess I would want to know why we need a special category for "good things done by christians". With regards to the conversation of MLK vs. Hitler; both men proclaimed to be christians so clearly being a christian isn't enough to guarantee noble endeavors. And since MLK was also influenced by non-christian leaders, we can't say that his belief in christianity was the sole cause of his achievement. Therefore, I think the most rewarding position is to acknowledge him for the unique individual that he was. Trying to piggy-back some glory for jesus on top of this almost seems petty and insulting.

 

If not, it's hypocritical.

Not necessarily. If someone does something "bad" and says it's religiously motivated, and then we look and we find that indeed that religion does promote that behavior then both the individual and the system of belief that allowed that action deserve our scrutiny. Now on the other hand if someone does something "good" and it's religously motivated, well that's fine too, however there are lots of people who either aren't religious or don't share that particular flavor of religion that also do good things, therefore trying to attribute that "good" action to religion doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

 

If your argument is that these good things are done whether or not someone was Christian, then why does that not apply to the bad things also?

Bad things do happen whether or not someone is a christian. However when bad things happen and the persons themselves tell us that they were motivated by their religion to do the bad thing and the religious doctrine does actually support that, then that's a problem for the religion.

 

You can't blame but then not give credit when it's due.

See above.

 

It seems to me that atheists (not necessarily those here, to be clear) like to pick and choose what to blame or give credit for, and there's no rational basis for that.

I certainly cannot speak for all non-theists, but I'll be happy to try to address any specific examples that you would like to bring forth.

 

Social justice, love for mankind based on the love Christ showed us, his experience with racism at a young age, and assorted other experience the source documents describe.

I guess I fail to understand how "love for mankind based on the love of jesus" differs from "love for mankind". I think it's pretty obvious that he had copious love for mankind and since I've yet to see anything which we cause me not to think that jesus is a fictional character, it seems to me that the unembellished version is more than sufficient.

 

That's not the argument I heard, so I think we're on two different tracks, then. I'm hearing 'if Christians are getting blamed for things like religious wars, they should be getting credit for good things done in the name of Christ.'

Why?

 

"I helped a little old lady across the street today".

"I helped a little old lady across the street today, in jesus' name".

 

Please help me understand how these are different. Why does the addition of three words make one act more noble or courteous than the other?

 

I think we end up doing this a little too often--we think each of us are arguing the same thing when we're off on subtle differences, and I'd like to avoid frustration/contempt issues based on misunderstandings over what we're actually talking about.

One would think that my ban from Kavar's would've fixed that up, eh? Yet here you are, so perhaps there is still more work that needs to be done.

 

I'll try to remember to ask if we're on the same page. If you could take that as a legit question on clarification instead of me trying to be a smartass, please, I would appreciate that.

Sounds good.

 

You and I suck at discussing religion with each other in a civil manner so I'd just rather we avoided the subject as much as possible.

Yet, you responded to my post.

 

Please forgive me if I find your actions to be inconsistent with your words.

 

Well, I said three time now that King read Gandhi and utilized his methods. I'm kind of confused why you're thinking I'm making the claim in that case.

Post 14.

 

It is possible to look through documents and determine the amount of influence of both Christ and Gandhi by looking at how many times both are referenced. The lion's share of quotes that King makes in speeches, sermons, and his books are from Christ or the Bible, not Gandhi. If you count up the references (which someone may have done), you'll find your answer on who had more influence on him. It's an indirect measure, but that makes it no less valid than the quote you're asking for.

Assuming that such a nose-count would actually be a valid way to determine such a thing, sure. I am skeptical of the validity of such an argument.

 

Hint: the bible is the single most reproduced work in the history of mankind and Gandhi's writings mostly consisted of letters and essays written in a foreign language. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many references there are to his mother in any of these works. I hope that one would not be tempted to argue that her influence over him was negligible based on a relative lack of shout-outs in his collected works.

 

You're implying that I'm arguing Gandhi had no influence. I don't know why, and don't know why you're continuing this line of thought.

No, I'm stating that post 14 would seem to be a deliberate attempt to discount or minimize said influence. My counter-argument to that point, which was offered in post 19, has been ignored.

 

I'm confused why you're wanting to make the influence equivalent to Christ,

Who said that I did? In fact, I think I specifically stated in post 19 that influence is not limited. He could have been "very influenced" by jesus and "very influenced" by Gandhi. The only person trying to place some sort of system of measure on this is you (post 14 and all subsequent posts).

 

Which again, is completely unrelated to the point that I was making, specifically: If we have to count Dr. King's actions as an attaboy for christianity, then we have do so for non-christian belief systems as well. Or we can just acknowledge that he was an incredible human being and leave the theology out of it.

 

but I'm beginning to think we're arguing about something that is way off on a tangent from what we're actually trying to get to. If we want to skip this as not what's germaine to the argument, I'm OK with that.

Sounds great.

[Jae Onasi]

King's the one who said it was Jesus' example that motivated him to do the great things he did. You don't believe that since you are atheist--fine for you. It doesn't negate that King said he did it to put his faith into action and be an example of Christ's love. That was his stated motivation. If you're disputing that he did it just because he's a good guy, OK, but it's not supported by the numerous documents where he states that it was his faith that gave him the courage and conviction to stay on course and continue the fight for civil rights in the midst of government surveillance and numerous death threats. I can't say 'He did great things because he was a great man' when King himself said 'I'm doing these things in the name of Christ.' He obviously didn't believe Christianity was a fairy tale. King and I'll chalk one up for Christ (though King would probably say he wasn't doing enough for Christ), you'll continue insisting it doesn't count because you don't want it to, so there's nothing more to say on that at that point.

 

As far as religion is concerned I don't plan on discussing it with you anymore than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of this thread. As you stated, you were banned from Kavar's. I prefer not to be the catalyst for further infractions so it's best if we leave that subject off limits as much as possible. I'm here because I love studying King and want to make sure misinformation about him isn't promulgated (and no, I am not saying anyone here is spreading misinformation).

[jrrtoken]

Christianity, I believe, did influence King's work, however, I do not accept his faith to be the primary motivation for his good works. Even though he repeatedly accredited his altruism to Christianity, I do not see him as some sort of poster child for Christian generosity; I see him simply as a representation of goodwill within man. This is also due to the equal or greater amount of evildoers that have also professed their faith to Christianity (Vlad the Impaler comes to mind, as well as several others.)

 

I will not attribute MLK's successes to his faith, as that only breeds further divide and hatred between religious groups; by singling out a supposed "superiority" in a religion, due to a few of its more generous followers, only produces more inter-religious hatred violence that has dominated world history.

 

Additionally, most individuals that I consider to be Christ-like aren't Christian at all. Gandhi, Guru Nanak, Siddhartha Gautama (and all of his subsequent reincarnations), Confucius, Bahá'u'lláh, and many others, are all prominent examples of people who exhibit what Christians consider to be Christian, sans Christ.

[GarfieldJL]

Christianity, I believe, did influence King's work, however, I do not accept his faith to be the primary motivation for his good works. Even though he repeatedly accredited his altruism to Christianity, I do not see him as some sort of poster child for Christian generosity; I see him simply as a representation of goodwill within man. This is also due to the equal or greater amount of evildoers that have also professed their faith to Christianity (Vlad the Impaler comes to mind, as well as several others.)

 

Christianity was the primary motivator for Dr. King, whether you choose to accept it or not.

 

As for Vlad the Impaler, wasn't he also a sadistic lunatic, that it could be argued that the man wasn't playing with a full deck.

 

I will not attribute MLK's successes to his faith, as that only breeds further divide and hatred between religious groups; by singling out a supposed "superiority" in a religion, due to a few of its more generous followers, only produces more inter-religious hatred violence that has dominated world history.

 

It doesn't breed hatred, the facts are the facts. Christianity was where Dr. King got his values from, it wasn't atheism it was Christianity. What I'm seeing is more of the same propaganda that atheism is somehow superior to people that believe in God which is a load of garbage.

 

Additionally, most individuals that I consider to be Christ-like aren't Christian at all. Gandhi, Guru Nanak, Siddhartha Gautama (and all of his subsequent reincarnations), Confucius, Bahá'u'lláh, and many others, are all prominent examples of people who exhibit what Christians consider to be Christian, sans Christ.

 

I thought this was about Dr. King, whom was a Christian Minister?

[Astor]

As for Vlad the Impaler, wasn't he also a sadistic lunatic, that it could be argued that the man wasn't playing with a full deck.

 

There are theories, but unless you have the testimonials of a 15th Century Wallachian Psychiatrist, we won't know.

 

It doesn't breed hatred, the facts are the facts. Christianity was where Dr. King got his values from, it wasn't atheism it was Christianity. What I'm seeing is more of the same propaganda that atheism is somehow superior to people that believe in God which is a load of garbage.[/Quote]

 

Where did Pastrami state, or even imply that Atheism was inherently superior? Or indeed, that MLK got his values from Atheism?

 

He didn't, so I don't see what your point is. His point was, I believe, that MLK was likely influenced by different faiths, and not solely Christianity.

[jrrtoken]

It doesn't breed hatred, the facts are the facts. Christianity was where Dr. King got his values from, it wasn't atheism it was Christianity.

I'm trying to point out that touting Christianity, or any religion, as superior, just because that one specific good doer belongs to said religion, is completely ignorant and illogical.

What I'm seeing is more of the same propaganda that atheism is somehow superior to people that believe in God which is a load of garbage.

Again, I'm saying quite the opposite; Christianity should not be given special treatment just because of one "good" follower.

I thought this was about Dr. King, whom was a Christian Minister?

It is, but I brought it up because not every righteous individual is Christian, contrary to popular belief.

[GarfieldJL]

There are theories, but unless you have the testimonials of a 15th Century Wallachian Psychiatrist, we won't know.

 

Considering the guy took sadistic pleasure in torturing rodents to death in dungeons where he was imprisoned kinda indicates the guy wasn't playing with a full deck.

 

 

Where did Pastrami state, or even imply that Atheism was inherently superior? Or indeed, that MLK got his values from Atheism?

 

It just seems to be a running theme with you guys.

 

He didn't, so I don't see what your point is. His point was, I believe, that MLK was likely influenced by different faiths, and not solely Christianity.

 

Most of the examples given involved philosophies not religions.

[jrrtoken]

It just seems to be a running theme with you guys.

"You guys"? You mean the non-conservative Christians, particularly the liberals, right?

Most of the examples given involved philosophies not religions.

Except for Nanak, Buddha, and Baha'u'llah, who all formed Sikhism, Buddhism, and Bahai. Confucius can be debated, but he was not Christian by denomination, which was the point.

[GarfieldJL]

"You guys"? You mean the non-conservative Christians, particularly the liberals, right?

 

Nope, I was referring to certain members of the board specifically, whom will largely remain nameless.

 

Except for Nanak, Buddha, and Baha'u'llah, who all formed Sikhism, Buddhism, and Bahai. Confucius can be debated, but he was not Christian by denomination, which was the point.

 

And when did he read anything having to do with those Religions? Buddhism is a philosophy btw, not a religion.

[jrrtoken]

Nope, I was referring to certain members of the board specifically, whom will largely remain nameless.

Okay.

And when did he read anything having to do with those Religions? Buddhism is a philosophy btw, not a religion.

Uh, nope. It does involve a great amount of philosophy, and there is really no official deity, but overall it is a true religion.

Buddhism

a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification

[True_Avery]

It just seems to be a running theme with you guys.

Is it a running theme, or just supposition on your part?

 

What I'm seeing is more of the same propaganda that atheism is somehow superior to people that believe in God which is a load of garbage.

What do you have to back that up?

[Rogue Nine]

After reading King's essay on his Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, a few things popped up at me:

 

As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform. Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationship. The “turn the other cheek” philosophy and the “love your enemies” philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was.

It would seem that studying Gandhi gave him a clearer understanding of ethics and love. Judging from his own words, it could be argued that had he not found Gandhi's teachings, he might not have been able to reach this clearer understanding.

 

It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking for so many months.

He gives no illusions as to where he gets his methods for his actions in civil rights reform.

 

Even the MLK Research and Education Institute acknowledges the scope of Gandhi's influence on Dr. King:

In 1950 King traveled to Philadelphia to hear a talk given by Dr. Mordecai Johnson, president of Howard University. Dr. Johnson had just returned from India and spoke of the life and teachings of Mohandas Gandhi. King was inspired by what he heard, and after reading several books on Gandhi's life and works, his skepticism concerning the power of love and nonviolence diminished.

From this, it appears that prior to studying Gandhi, Dr, King was unsure about the philosophy of nonviolence and its practicality.

 

The experience in Montgomery enabled King to merge the ideas of Gandhi with Christian theology. He recalled, “. . . my mind, consciously or unconsciously, was driven back to the Sermon on the Mount and the Gandhian method of nonviolent resistance. This principle became the guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.”

Dr. King of course brought his message back to Christianity, but from this text it would seem that Gandhi played an almost, if not fully, equal part in influencing Dr. King's nonviolent methods.

 

Hell, even the US Government has passed a resolution acknowledging and endorsing the influence Gandhi had on Dr. King. I think it's fairly safe to say that Mohandas Gandhi played an enormous part in influencing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Q]

So it's safe to say that he was influenced by both? OK, that's what I thought.

 

Is everyone debating percentages or something? What's the point?

[Achilles]

The point is that some people want to argue, "Isn't christianity great? It gave us MLK!", however since MLK was also influenced by non-christians, the claim does not hold up. Personally, I find the whole exercise distasteful. It's like two parents arguing over which one their child loves more after he's won the school spelling bee or something.

 

EDIT: Better analogy - it's like a parent boasting about how wonderful they are after their child has won the spelling bee.