Conflicting Forces
Every once in a
while, a person comes along who completely changes the world they live in. Martin
Luther King Jr. was one of those people. King was the voice of a revolution. He
was an excellent leader; he was able to get people to rally behind him. When
forming your opinion about a person, however, it is sometimes helpful to
consider how other influential people would respond to his or her ideas.
Martin Luther
King Jr. had many ideas that were distinct from popular thought. He believed
that it was the church's duty to resolve injustice. He thought that a person of
faith needed to look out for the rights of his fellow man. In his mind, Christians
did not have the luxury to idly sit on the sidelines and see what happened.
Another idea of King was that it is acceptable, even right, to break unjust
laws. He thought it a greater sin to follow the unjust laws than to break them.
Perhaps the most controversial idea of all was that of militant non-violence.
King thought that, no matter what his opposition did to him, he should never
respond with violence. King wrote of the positions on this issue: "I stand in
the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency
... The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously
close to advocating violence (Letter From a Birmingham Jail)."
Jean Jacques
Rousseau was a man who would have completely disagreed with some of King's
thoughts. Rousseau would particularly disagree with the idea that the Church must
fight injustice. Rousseau believed that true Christians are so focused on
heavenly things that they don't care about earthly things. They would, therefore,
not fight laws, because all injustice will resolve in heaven. Rousseau also
thought that citizens of a country should be free to have whatever opinions
they wanted, so long as they obeyed the laws. This thought is in stark contrast
to civil disobedience. He thought that citizens should be loyal to their
country above all else, in order for the country to survive. On the issue of
militant non-violence, Rousseau and King would have once again disagreed.
Rousseau thought that those who were not willing to fight were too easily taken
advantage of. Rousseau would not have expected militant non-violence to improve
a situation. Rousseau and King were clearly in disagreement on their political
views (Rousseau 2-5).
David Hume was a
man who questioned information extensively before accepting it as true. He
would likely not believe that there was any racial discrimination past what he
saw with his own eyes. He would argue that otherwise there were not enough
reliable eye-witnesses. Hume would have found it ridiculous for King to believe
that all Christians should react the same way on an issue. Hume stated, "When I am convinced of any principle, 'tis
only an idea, which strikes more strongly upon me. When I give the preference
to one set of arguments above another, I do nothing but decide from my feeling
concerning the superiority of their influence." Feeling vary from person to
person, so it wrong to assume that all Christians would have the obligation to
agree on the issue. Hume would have agreed with King on civil disobedience. If
he disagreed with a law or thought its merit improbable he would reject it and
find a different alternative. Hume would not be strongly for or against
militant non-violence. He would plausibly be skeptical of the merits of both violence
and non-violence. Hume was, at his core, a skeptic, and that would show in his
positions on ideas (Hume 238-42).
Martin Luther and
Martin Luther King Jr. had a lot in common. In addition to their names, they
both started great reformations of the way things were in their time periods. With
thoughts and ideas, though, similarities are less clearly cut. Luther did
believe that Christians were commanded to help their neighbors in need. So he
would have probably agreed with king that the church should help free their
African-American brothers from oppression. It gets tricky when you get to civil
disobedience, however. He wrote many times that Christians should obey the
governing authorities, for their power comes from God. His actions - the
reformation - seem to suggest, on the other hand, that he does believe
Christians should try to reform those in power, if their laws go against the
Bible. Luther would certainly agree with militant non-violence. He believed
that believers should not hurt or harm their neighbor in any way. This would remain true even if they were being mistreated
(Luther 346-47; 372).
The thing that
influential people all seem to have in common is that they have a strong
opinion about something. It makes sense, therefore, that this would remain true
with their opinions of other people's ideas. It would be truly fascinating to
witness a conversation between Martin Luther King Jr. and Rousseau, Hume, or
Luther.
Works Cited
Hume, David. The Essay on Miracles. 238-42.
Print.
King, Martin Luther Jr. Letter from a Birmingham
Jail . 1963. Print.
Luther, Martin. "Small Catechism." Concordia:
The Lutheran Confessions. 'Comp'. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005. Print.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract or
Principles of Political Right. 1762. 2-5. Print.
