Comments on: Reflections on Martin

By: David Evans

David Evans — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:32:19 +0000

Hi Virginia–

I like that quote you provided at the beginning. It makes sense– we glorify the god or gods we believe in through our actions, and at the same time, we dishonor them through our bad deeds. You can see that in the myths and legends of many older religions: good is rewarded, evil is punished.

If morality is “God’s law,” then what is “man’s law?” Could we survive without religion? Or is religion necessary to our lives? Food for thought…

By: Virginia L. Beach

Virginia L. Beach — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:48:45 +0000

Hmmmm…you’ve raised some good points as well, David… ones that are also well worth considering.

A friend of mine, herself a spiritual leader, once wrote in an article I read that “if our actions are honorable and ethical, then Deity is enhanced by us; and likewise, if our actions are dishonorable and unethical, then Deity is correspondingly impoverished.”

That’s an interesting thought. Almost 2000 years ago, Jesus was credited with saying that “by the fruits of their labor you shall know them.” We might do well to heed by these wise words even today and let our actions speak justly for themselves.

I agree totally that just about every religion or spiritual system does indeed have some version of the Golden Rule at its heart. I like to look at that Golden Rule as being a code of ethics, generally formed around the concepts of morality, behavior, and character. Such a code can give us more concrete ideas about the concept of harm and suggest appropriate responses; it also forces us to examine our behavior towards everyone and everything - human and non-human - with which we interact during the course of our lives.

Your comment regarding morality and spirituality is an interesting one…considering that a common view held by some spiritual leaders is that morality has a divine component to it that pure legality does not. There are those who believe morality is “God’s Law” - God defines morality and humans obey. Some even go so far as to state that without religion, we would have neither morality nor virtue.

I’m not sure I can agree with such a statement (see, I have problems with religion too!), but it is an interesting concept…and perhaps one that propels the effort to achieve that equality in terms of human rights.

By: David Evans

David Evans — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:33:48 +0000

Hm, good point. While I have a lot of problems with religion per se, I think what you’re saying is interesting, and worth considering. I think perhaps (and this is just me speaking!)it has to do with fundamental issues of morality, not necessarily spirituality. Spiritual leaders, in their search for whatever truths they want answers for, have to transcend materialistic impulses, political divisions, and the banality of everyday life and examine the deeper fundamentals of what it means to be human. One of these foundations concerns moral issues, such as “how do we differentiate ourselves from other living beings on this planet?” “What obligations do we have to ourselves and others?” “How is civilization ‘moral,’ and what constitutes ‘morality’?”

Once these questions (and more!) are sorted out, I think some of the answers, by necessity, focus on the injustices. Just about every religion/spiritual system I’ve heard of has a version of the Golden Rule at its heart– the Golden Rule, to my mind, is the most essential part of human rights, and thus propels those with the influence and means to do so to ensure that we all achieve equality in terms of human rights.

What do you think? Perhaps a somewhat broad, somewhat simplistic answer, maybe, but that’s my two cents.

By: David Evans

David Evans — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:27:50 +0000

That *is* something to think about– how rapidly civil rights movements have expanded since the 1950s– you had the women’s movement and gay rights in the late 60s/early 70s, but since then, you had a period of about 20 years during the 1970s and 1980s where every group you could think of asserted themselves and battled politicians, courts, and public opinion for the right to equal access in all aspects of life.

What you and Moi have said (and the article too) is what troubles me to an extent– an entire generation, and now a second one, has grown up with no first-hand knowledge of the conditions that sparked the Civil Rights Movement and the rise of King. On the other hand, the comfort that the present generation seems to have with people of all types bodes well for the future– for example, gay rights. I’m seeing more acceptance and less resistance to equality, marriage rights, etc. among people of my sister’s generation (late teens/early 20s) as compared with people from my generation or older.

The winds of change, they are blowing…

By: Virginia L. Beach

Virginia L. Beach — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:36:35 +0000

I find it interesting how, while we all applaud Martin Luther King’s role as a civil rights leader, we neglect to mention one significant aspect of his life - Dr. King’s profession was that of a clergyman…in fact, his doctorate was earned in Theology, from Boston University. He was pastor of a Baptist church in Montgomergy during the bus boycott there, and co-pastor of a church in Atlanta at the time of his assassination.

I find it interesting that many of the people whom we recognize as great civil leaders and/or humanitarians were also considered spiritual leaders by their people - Dr. King, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa are amongst those who come to mind.

Why is this the case? Is there some kind of connection between spirituality and humankind that encourages these individuals (and others like them) to reach out to their fellow man in an attempt to correct injustice and bring about equality?

By: kaybee

kaybee — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:07:02 +0000

Just occurred to me that my 30 something generation that started to study history back in late 80s with those terms “civil rights” “equality” and so on, have really evolved rapidly the past 20 years to include Asians, Latinos and deaf and those with other disabilities (as perceived by hearing and full able bodies *cough*). women, blacks (both probably at tandem for most part in regards to gender equality), latinos, then deaf.. now there’s a disability movement going on at an international level finally (WFD is still lumped as part of the current movement :-( )

Gandhi’s nonviolence is based on “satyagraha” (devotion to the truth) a methodology he adopted when he participated in a protest in South Africa in 1906.

Moi’s post struck me that today’s teenagers would have trouble conveying those terms to the timeline. Wow.

By: MikeS

MikeS — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:24:54 +0000

What MLK learned from Gandi, and what we learned from MLK, is that non-violent protests can be effective.

By: moi

moi — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:43:12 +0000

Yeah - I was talking with a group of bright, racially mixed teens about Dr. King recently and they questioned his emphasis on black and white. They wondered about Latinos, Asians, and members of other ethic groups. Did he really not intend to include them in his message of equality? I placed him in the context of the time and place where he was. The South was almost wholly black and white, for example. I told them that I believe that he would have wanted all of us, black, white, red, yellow, green, purple, to all live together in harmony. You’re right - we need to both understand where he was and place his words in that context, yet know that his message transcends all of that.