Next Show: ...loading...

Happy Martin Luther King Day

January 16, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Henry Clay McSmith January 17, 2006 9:43 am

    The remarkable thing about MLK was his MO–his ends were inherent of their means–his non-violent approach assuaged a violent legacy and stands as a prototype along with Ghandi’s for others of all causes to settle their grievances

  • Vicky January 17, 2006 6:47 am

    Robt – You still didn’t really make a point after all the copying and pasting you did on MLK….blah,blah,blah,blah..blah!
    I didn’t hear anything about it being Pat Robertson day – I certainly didn’t bring his name into the mix.
    Quite presumptious of Bush to make that remark wasn’t it? If Kerry did say that, why didn’t He try to find what “God’s side” was/is?

  • Robt January 17, 2006 4:00 am

    I will draw this difference from the last Presidential election.
    Bush claimed “God’s on our side”.
    where Kerry stated “he wants to be on Gods side”
    The difference is there if you can see it…

  • Robt January 17, 2006 3:53 am

    National Religious Freedom Day is a day of thanksgiving and a reflection of the tradition of religious liberty, born in Virginia and so vital to world peace, that is shared across America and must be nurtured in communities worldwide.
    Proclaimed by the President of the United States on January 16 each year, National Religious Freedom Day commemorates the Virginia General Assembly’s adoption of Thomas Jefferson’s landmark Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. This vital document became the basis for the separation of church and state, and led to freedom of religion for all Americans as protected in the religion clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
    Pat Robertson and religious violence
    Wignall’s World
    Mark Wignall
    Sunday, January 15, 2006
    Pat Robertson of the American religious right seems to have a very shaky relationship with God. Or, at the very least, as the spokesman for a very violent god, he seems not to have had much briefing with God before opening the mouth which articulates the ramblings of Robertson’s extremely troubled mind.
    According to Robertson, Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, a man with a most violent past, was struck down by God as payment from pulling out of the Gaza Strip, lands which Israel took away for Egypt in the six-day war of 1967.
    It matters not that Robertson has apologised. Apology, to Robertson, is strategy designed to place him in the best of both worlds. Say what he really means then apologise. Robertson represents most faithfully the violence of the Old Testament in which ‘the children of Israel’ had most-favoured-nation status while the god of that era was striking down all who failed to recognise his god-ship.
    As the man who has already called for the assassination for the leaders of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, Robertson fits quite nicely in any slot in the Old Testament which places him on the side of the god of those narratives.
    The modern state of Israel was founded (1948) on what some saw as a biblical promise. Its genesis in the aftermath of the Great War part two and the European Holocaust, in which six million Jews were systematically decimated by Hitler, was met with worldwide sympathy.
    From the moment of the declaration of statehood, Israel was attacked by the surrounding Arab states for various reasons, not the least of which was the displacement of Arab peoples and Israel’s claim to Jerusalem, a holy city to the Arabs – and the Zionists.
    Many wars have been fought between the Israelis and the Arab states and in all of them, Israel – with the help of the US, and its own healthy weapons manufacturing capability – has prevailed. All of US policy in the Middle East is focused on protecting the ‘children of the real God’, that is, Israel, and ensuring that America will always have a front row seat on the oil-producing lands of planet earth.
    Pat Robertson… has called damnation on Hugo chavez, Fidel Castro and Ariel Sharon
    Arab countries worship ‘the wrong God’ and have the gall to remind westerners of it five times per day, have dusky skins, speak a strange language (read non-English) and are thought by Christian fundamentalists, and purveyors of the Old Testament, to be at war with ‘the truth’. All this grist for the mill for persons like Pat Robertson.
    Christian teaching forces on the religious gullible the embracing of the violence of the Old Testament and the more sober, universal message in the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. It is this strange and contradictory doctrine which gives rise to persons like George Bush and Pat Robertson.
    It provides Bush with a ready-made constituency of persons who want to be ‘on the side of God’, especially when war is being waged by modern-day Crusaders on Infidels.
    And, of course, it provides Pat Robertson and his ilk with a very healthy income.
    Notice the 2nd para mention of churh & state.
    You think Robertson and the multitudes like him will stand for religious freedom. The religious (sensitive) right shows no tolerance of those who differ with them.
    For know I’ll stick with Martin L. King day. For a not so much King as it was the people of the movement. And yes, King delivered a front line leadership role!
    I think religious freedom is really not there. Perhaps in law but not in the American’s soul. Corruption and hateful bias is not only in our state capitol. See the faiths compete and how they do it.
    If this freedom is to exist it must be in the hearts. Not just in script or proclaimed by the next president who has to make a speech of it to look good.
    It is not just Robertson! It is not just at present. So I stick with Martin L. King day, ok…

  • Skip January 17, 2006 3:42 am

    I guess everything boils down to ideals if we accept that arguement. If King’s ideals were civil rights etc., that doesn’t matter since they are just “ideals”?
    It’s interesting that the BBC’s The Power of Nightmares show describes both the neocons and Al Qaida as groups of idealists whose histories strongly paralleled one another. I guess I can go along with all of this if Charles Manson is also viewed as an idealist.