What’s not worth reading
I’m sure many readers will not agree with me, but … as for me, I’ve had it up to here with:
The Duggars.
Jenner.
Kardashians.
Bushes.
Clintons.
I do not want to read anything concerning these people. Those who do not agree with me, by all means, enjoy your reading.
JOHN BELITSAKOS
Fayetteville
The two Martin Luthers
Although attempts were made to show that Martin Luther King’s efforts were for the advancement of civil rights for under-privileged Americans, they were for the civil rights of all Americans. Political and educational authorities sought to make King’s work only or mainly for those of color. They, of course, were not the only people suffering from this idea.
As with the German priest Martin Luther’s objections to the behavior of the church prelates, represented by their authority to Rome, King believed the states’ decision to override the rights of citizens would eventually cause a revolution in America that would tear the country apart.
Luther, the priest, believed any sane person could interpret the Scriptures to his or her satisfaction, that this ability placed one in direct relation to the heavenly Savior. King believed political authority could not reduce rights given to the people and enforced by their citizenship.
The preachments of Martin Luther King Jr. in America were the equivalents of the nailing of the 95 theses by the priest Martin Luther on the chapel door of Wittenberg, in Germany, around 1531. Both argued the people had rights, some of which could not be supported and enforced by the overseers of society.
As Martin Luther, the priest, recognized there were many violations of Christianity, including indulgences (sin) for sale, M.L. King argued modem indulgences were the denial of the rights of citizenship to persons who had been granted citizenship by the federal government whose only authority they knew and respected, and who knew them.
There was greater equality between blacks and immigrants because the latter groups were not treated as whites of privilege. King preached mainly to African-Americans because those in charge of whiteness prohibited members of that group from listening to his speeches for fear they would be influenced by them. In this move they would overlook that their problems were not different from, but were a part of those of black Americans.
Martin Luther eventually took up the idea that he was so sinful it would be only through God’s mercy that he could be saved.
King did not believe the people were sinful, but it was the state that was sinful. The seizure by the state of the people had erased any state responsibility for their religious standing. Under the separation of religion and politics, or the separation of church and state, King could neither call upon the people to save themselves nor appeal to the state to offer them civil rights. Thus, there was left no philosophical foundation for the attainment of civil rights for some of the people.
The monk, Martin Luther, became a pastor, married to an ex-nun, the father of six children, and an opponent of Rome. King became an opponent of America’s decision to deny citizenship to many of her children. His implanting his theses on the minds of American people was as meaningful as the 95 theses nailed on the chapel door at Wittenberg by the original Martin Luther.
GORDON D. MORGAN
Fayetteville
Editorial on 06/28/2015