Brother, when you say such things as in the attached image, you show your hand. It is clear you haven't yet even been persuaded by MLK's original message, nor the Civil Rights Movement itself.
For example, Dr. King wrote,
"Our hope for creative living in this world house 1/
2/ "that we have inherited lies in our ability to reestablish the moral ends of our lives in personal character and social justice."
Or how about,
"Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. There is no other answer. Constructive social change
3/ "will bring certain tranquillity; evasions will merely encourage turmoil. Negroes hold only one key to the double lock of peaceful change. The other is in the hands of the white community."
Or,
"We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical
4/ "redistribution of economic and political power…. This means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others…
5/ "the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order."
So, please get to know King before using him for unrighteous ends. His a start:
6/ Also, work to understand the the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's itself. You might be surprised that what you are opposing now is the very movement you think you endorse in contrast:
7/ Last, given that you are a theology professor, you need to come to terms with the fact that your narrow understanding of justice does not come from the Bible, but is just another social philosophy born of American culture. Biblical justice includes social justice at every
8/8 turn. The scriptures are riddled with calls for social justice. Maybe begin with an introductory work like @timkellernyc's Generous Justice. Or even read John Calvin!
On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what Carles Mills has called the "epistemology of ignorance," necessary for the maintenance of the Racial Contract.
If interested, the following long quote will clarify. 1/
2/ "[O]n matters related to race, the Racial Contract prescribes for its signatories an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, a particular pattern of localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are psychologically and socially functional), producing the
3/ "ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made. Part of what it means to be constructed as “white” (the metamorphosis of the sociopolitical contract), part of what it requires to achieve Whiteness, successfully to become
The sooner you realize the whole "Christian" masculinity cult, with their broader theology and ideology, is just a conscious or unconscious justification for controlling, manipulating, and exploiting women as sex slaves, the sooner you'll understand the movement.
They didn't 1/
2/ think their way through rigorous study into their theology/ideology and then realize that women happen to be subordinate receptors of their abuse, as some might think. No, that was the demiurge of the whole movement. The ideology is the justificatory effect, not the cause.
3/ Honestly, this is how you understand the whole Moscow, ID cult and adjacent, regardless of what they may claim or tell themselves. It helpfully explains all the weirdness, as a good sociological or psychological theory should.
"If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention 1/
2/ "that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to
3/ "give his life serving others.
I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. And I
"One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites. Love is identified with a resignation of power and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused 1/
2/ "Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject Nietzsche’s philosophy of the “will to power” in the name of the Christian idea of love. What is needed
3/ "is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.
"In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers—from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no. Insofar as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating 1/
2/ "totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but insofar as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with
3/ a definite “yes.” My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in
What's so odd to me about the way these Christian Nationalists talk about voting rights is that there is literally no mention of voting or democracy anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere. Nothing. The ideas that created our democracy (yes, I know, democratic republic) were products 1/
2/ of the Enlightenment, like it or not, and rested on the idea that every individual was a rational agent capable of freedom, discerning the moral good, etc. The reason why the voting franchise was not extended to women and most "races," whether they owned property or not, is
3/ because they were believed to lack this capacity (for one BS reason or another). The franchise was not curtailed because of Bible this, or Bible that, or Biblical definition of "household," or whatever. Again, the Bible literally says nothing about voting or democracy, which