Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham jail was a detailed letter explaining the motives and emotion behind the non-violent protests that took place in the South. As a result of these protests, a few white religious leaders criticized the actions of Dr. King and those encouraging the non-violent campaigns. The purpose of this letter was to respond to criticism made by these leaders. In the letter Dr. King expounded on four of the leaders’ comments. He responded to the comments regarding the untimeliness of the campaigns, the willingness of the campaigners to break laws, the allegation that the campaigns triggered violence, and the description of the campaigns as extreme. Dr. King also expressed his disappointment with the white Christian
…show more content…
Dr. Kings responded by explaining that there are two types of laws: just laws, and unjust laws. He described just laws as laws that align with moral or God’s law, and unjust laws as laws that do not align with moral law. He also described just law as law that “a majority compels a minority to follow, and is willing to follow itself,” and unjust law as law that “a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself.” Using these definitions, he argued his point that willingly disobeying certain laws is, in some cases, the moral thing to do. Dr. King’s third response was to the allegation that the peaceful, direct-action triggers violence. He explained his belief that the greatest hindrance to freedom of blacks is the white moderate, who is devoted to “order than justice,” and who prefers “negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.” Dr. King went on to say that it is illogical to assert that their “peaceful actions” initiate violence. He also pointed out that it is immoral to force an individual to forfeit their constitutional rights because it prompts …show more content…
The way Dr. King responded to the comments made much sense to me, and really questioned the morality of certain actions and laws. I agreed with his statement that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” When justice is delayed, injustice still remains. Therefore, delaying it too long is basically denying it. I also found Dr. King’s classification of law enlightening. Law that a majority imposes on a minority, but is not willing to follow itself, is a double standard and is unjust. Dr. King also pointed out that the greatest hindrance to freedom is whites who are devoted to the absence of tension, instead of the presence of justice. Sadly, this is still the case today. There are some people who avoid addressing racial issues, and issues in general, because it makes them feel uncomfortable or creates tension. However, it is necessary to get over those feelings and address issues so justice can be served. In Dr. King’s fourth point, he mentioned that being an extremist is not necessarily a bad thing, but the type of extremist one chooses to be should be considered. I agree with this, everyone is an extremist in some shape or form; however, what we are extreme about is where the concern lies. We should be extremists about things that are morally right, and add to society and not take away from
Dr. Kings responded by explaining that there are two types of laws: just laws, and unjust laws. He described just laws as laws that align with moral or God’s law, and unjust laws as laws that do not align with moral law. He also described just law as law that “a majority compels a minority to follow, and is willing to follow itself,” and unjust law as law that “a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself.” Using these definitions, he argued his point that willingly disobeying certain laws is, in some cases, the moral thing to do. Dr. King’s third response was to the allegation that the peaceful, direct-action triggers violence. He explained his belief that the greatest hindrance to freedom of blacks is the white moderate, who is devoted to “order than justice,” and who prefers “negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.” Dr. King went on to say that it is illogical to assert that their “peaceful actions” initiate violence. He also pointed out that it is immoral to force an individual to forfeit their constitutional rights because it prompts …show more content…
The way Dr. King responded to the comments made much sense to me, and really questioned the morality of certain actions and laws. I agreed with his statement that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” When justice is delayed, injustice still remains. Therefore, delaying it too long is basically denying it. I also found Dr. King’s classification of law enlightening. Law that a majority imposes on a minority, but is not willing to follow itself, is a double standard and is unjust. Dr. King also pointed out that the greatest hindrance to freedom is whites who are devoted to the absence of tension, instead of the presence of justice. Sadly, this is still the case today. There are some people who avoid addressing racial issues, and issues in general, because it makes them feel uncomfortable or creates tension. However, it is necessary to get over those feelings and address issues so justice can be served. In Dr. King’s fourth point, he mentioned that being an extremist is not necessarily a bad thing, but the type of extremist one chooses to be should be considered. I agree with this, everyone is an extremist in some shape or form; however, what we are extreme about is where the concern lies. We should be extremists about things that are morally right, and add to society and not take away from