Remembering the Real Dr. King on MLK Day

On this Martin Luther King, Jr. day, which also sees the second inauguration of our first African-American President with his hand on Dr. King's Bible, there are a number of interesting discussions on what his real legacy is.

Is the dream fully realized? Is racism over? Some actually say "yes", un-ironically (Stephen Colbert doesn't see race, after all). CNN is featuring an interesting piece on conservatives who look to Dr. King for inspiration. Those in the liberal/progressive camp have long quoted him supporting their policies.

The truth about Martin Luther King is, of course, a lot more complicated than most of us want to admit. He may have said a lot of things that are convenient to use as proof-texts, but also said many things that challenge people all over the spectrum.

Perhaps no word sum it up as well as this picture of Dr. King talking with President Johnson, a man for whom he actively campaigned, but is clearly agitating with his words challenging the President to seek peace and justice.




But words do matter, especially since we spend this day honoring a man who used language so skillfully and powerfully.

Here is a list of King quotes we don't often hear because they make us too uncomfortable.

Here is Dr. King's 1967 speech publicly opposing the Vietnam War- a speech that lost him quite a few friends:

Finally, here is Cornel West with an interesting take on why he didn't like President Obama using Dr. King's Bible to take the oath today.

May we all be appropriately discomforted by Martin Luther King's prophetic speech and do something with that discomfort. Then we really will be honoring his memory.

If You're on Facebook

Then you've no doubt seen the dust up over a group that prays for President Obama's death, and claims that it's a joke. Just when you thought we'd reached the bottom of the barrel in our national discourse, someone created a new low.

The really sad part is that lots of well meaning people (including friends that I hold in very high regard) joined the group. Have we been so bombarded by the Glen Becks and Keith Olbermans of the world that we're desensitized enough to think that praying for someone's death can be funny?

I'm taking a stand, and I hope you'll join me. Tomorrow from 8am to 8pm (local time wherever you are), don't log on to Facebook. The drop in participation will show the administrators of Facebook that people won't tolerate hate speech disguised as humor. If you're so inclined, RSVP to the Logout for Civility event page.

It's a small gesture (well, maybe a big one if you're a Facebook addict), but if enough people participate it will have a huge impact.

Hijacking the Bible

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore by the ways people use the Bible for their own purposes, even when they isolate certain verses or passages and twist them beyond the context in which they appear, and even when they go against the core message of the Bible.

(Yes, I'm making interpretive choices about what context and core message are. We all have to do that to arrive at any conclusions about the text.)

But I'm very saddened to see the latest hijacking of the Bible. Some group has started producing T-shirts and other products that say "Pray for Obama; Psalm 109:8"

The quoted verse (in the KJV) says "let his days be few and let another take his office". The following verse, Psalm 109:9 (again, in the KJV), says "let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow".

(sidenote- this is the best, most concise video on the subject I could find. Rachel Maddow and her guest, Frank Schaeffer, are very far to the left, but the interview is very thought provoking, regardless of your political affiliation.)

Laying aside for a moment how awful it is that someone would pray for a person in an opposing political party to be killed, this Psalm 109 fad shows just how dangerous indiscriminate proof-texting really is.

The Psalms are the prayer/hymn book of ancient Israel. They express the full range of human emotions, including anger and even rage against others, as we can see from Psalm 109. This particular Psalm is a prayer of a righteous man who is frustrated at those who are trying to bring him down.

Anger and frustration are certainly party of the human experience. But does the Psalm really tell us to pray for God to strike down the people we don't like? Absolutely not! The Psalm ends with the man having gotten out his feelings of anger and frustration and proclaiming his faith that God will carry him through any situation. It's an example of how we can work out our frustrations in prayer so we can be in a better place to deal with conflict.

Interpretive quarrels aside, this whole Psalm 109 fad is another example of how the decline of Christianity in America is our own fault. People are turning away from the church not because Satan is doing such a great job, but because we Christians are doing such a good job at twisting Jesus to fit the mold of our religious and political idols. And the problem is that everyone else can see it but us. People read the Bible and think Jesus is a pretty great guy, but they look at his followers and want nothing to do with us. When questioned about his faith, Ghandi said he would follow Christ if it were not for all the Christians he encountered.

What if the folks who were producing these T-shirts changed the verse to Matthew 5:44- "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (rightly or wrongly, some folks are feeling persecuted). It probably wouldn't get noticed on the cable "news" shows, and it might not even sell as many T-shirts, but it would more accurately reflect the true message of the Bible and the loving God to whom it points.

Conspiracy Theories and Media

I hate even bringing up this issue, because doing so might somehow indicate that I believe that the people on this particular bandwagon have a point or that is even the slightest bit legitimate. Reticence noted, here goes.

It seems that the so called "Birther" movement just won't go away. This is a relatively small but unbelievably vocal group of people who insist that, in spite of ironclad evidence to the contrary, President Obama is not a US citizen and thus not eligible to be President.

What really amazes me about this whole issue is not that fringe groups make thinly veiled racist arguments driven more by paranoia, prejudice, and an unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories. Living in the South so close to the home base of the KKK, I see that sort of garbage all the time. What really blows my mind is how members of the mainstream media not only give this issue any attention, but some of them are even keeping this story alive.

I'm not just talking about Faux News, either. They just added Glen Beck to their stable of nut jobs, which tells you all you need to know about their priorities. I'm talking about CNN, the network that claims to pride itself on staying above the partisan fray.

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, a well known xenophobe (see his almost nightly attacks on undocumented laborers) is one of the chief proponents of the "birther" conspiracy theory (side note: Jon Stewart, as he often does, superbly illustrates the absurdity of this whole thing). In an interview with Politico, CNN President Jon Klein sidestepped any responsibility for this yellow journalism masquerading as legitimate, impartial journalism, by claiming that what Dobbs says on his radio show, part of a different media company, is of no concern to CNN.

I don't believe that for a second. If Dobbs or any other on-air personality at CNN or any other network got a DUI or was accused of a violent crime, the network would suspend them, if not outright fire them. We need look no further than Don Imus or Charles Barkley for proof of that. Saying "This person did X act outside of our airwaves" would not be acceptable, because networks live and die by the public perception of their on-air talent.

Dobbs draws big ratings, hence CNN can charge more to run ads on his show. The same goes for incendiary talking heads like Glen Beck, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'Reiley. As long as the sponsors are happy, they can go on saying any incendiary thing they want. The more outrageous the better, because it keeps us all tuning in.

The majority of us who are sick of this kind of thing passing for legitimate news do have some recourse, however. We can simply turn off the TV, thus negatively affecting the ratings of these talking heads. If we're so inclined we could even contact these networks or even their advertisers and tell them that we expect better of them if they are going to be our voice.

Taking a few minutes to speak up might do us all a lot of good.

From Either/Or to Both/And

After listening to and reading through the transcript of President Obama's speech in Cairo today, I have to say that I was very impressed. Perhaps this is not much of a shock, since I identify as a Christian Progressive and tend to like Obama (even though I don't agree with all of his policies). What really impressed me was not so much the policy positions he put forth as what the speech reveals about the way he thinks and approaches complex issues. It is a way of thinking that I think is largely shared by most people, and yet is tragically absent from our public discourse.

This kind of thinking could be labeled as "Both/And" thinking. It is the kind of thinking that rejects the idea that all problems have only two solutions, and that these solutions are the polar opposite of one another. I supposed you could call this other type "Either/Or" thinking. "Both/And" thinking can see and appreciate many perspectives, and is not afraid to talk about the merits of postions with which they disagree. "Both/And" thinking's primary concern is not proving why one's position is always correct and the opposing position is always wrong. Instead, it attempts to put different strands of thought in dialogue with one another to achieve the best possible result.

President Obama's speech strikes me as an impressive display of "Both/And" thinking because it actively rejects the polarizing, "Either/Or" nature of the way our foreign relations were conducted during the last administration (as an aside, just as I don't agree with all of President Obama's positions, I didn't always disagree with all of President Bush's positions). In addressing the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama acknowledged that both Israel and Palestine have done wrong and caused suffering to the other, and that both sides have to make compromises for lasting peace to be achieved.

I don't think I've heard an American President ever criticize Israel in public remarks. I seriously doubt that all of the Presidents since Truman have thought that Israel never does anything wrong, but I believe they were keenly aware of the "Either/Or" nature of most political discourse and were afraid of what would happen if they ever dared challenge such polarizing thinking. Uncritical "Either/Or" thinking is largely responsible for many of the moral disgraces of the last decade, especially the use of torture against enemy combatants. One either unquestioningly supported the Bush administration's prosecution of the War on Terror, or they were unpatriotic and didn't love America.

Perhaps in another post I'll talk about how I see "Either/Or" thinking's destructive power at play in religious dialogue as well. For now I'll just say that regardless of our political affiliation, I hope we can all look to President Obama's speech today as a great example of "Either/Or" thinking and how it demonstrates a positive way for us to move forward and work out our differences together.