Agnostic.com

40 6

Not sure how this works but there seems to be a demeaning air toward all religious leaders here, regardless of denomination, other than MLK who seems to be revered, even though a religious leader.

What’s that all about? Is it because he is being looked upon as an intelligent and insightful human being?

Geoffrey51 8 Jan 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

40 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

13

MLK isn't really seen so much as a religious leader, as he is seen as a civil rights leader. While mos religious leaders are primarily interested in increasing donations, MLK is seen as a person interested in making a better world of equal opportunity for everyone.

Very well said.

9

As I've read through a lot of the comments here, I've noticed that even though civil rights are mentioned, maybe that term is a little misunderstood. I lived in a suburb of Chicago in the early to mid 60s. I saw the struggle for civil rights firsthand. Yes, I was young then, 5th, 6th, and 7th grade but I was acutely aware of what was at stake. Before Johnson adopted the Civil Rights Act, black people could not vote in this country. I always found it odd that this persisted for so long after the end of the Civil War. Even 36 miles away from Chicago, blacks were not allowed in the city limits after 10 PM. I've always admired the people who stood up to this injustice but I was powerless to really do anything that mattered. So instead, I understood that I must always treat everyone with the dignity everyone deserves. Since my birth I've lived in 9 different states and I've always kept my promise to myself. Dr. King really didn't strike me as a religious leader but he really was a leader among men. Whenever I heard any of his speeches, (on TV of course) I never came away with the idea that he was talking about anything beyond his vision of racial harmony. There was no hate speech, nothing but his desire to see people of all colors living together in peace. We are better today but there are still people who subscribe to the old, tired, and morally absent views from years gone by. When I saw on TV that Dr. King had been shot and killed, I think every American died a little bit that day. Whether they knew it or not. The 60s was a tough decade. JFK, then Oswald getting shot live on TV, (yes, I watched this live), Dr. King and then Robert Kennedy. The only redeeming factor was the moon landing. That made us forget for a little while. I'm grateful to have lived through these times, but I wouldn't do it again. It's too emotionally draining to watch your fellow citizens fight so hard for such a simple thing. Too much death of the people who were poised to change the United States for the better. I believe that until everyone, young or old, black or white, religious or atheistic, or any of the myriad of ways we are all different, we can all live together in harmony no matter what anyone believes. We must take the chance because we all deserve to live an unimpeded life. All of us.

Hear, hear!

8

@Geoffrey51

How old are you? Don't you know the history of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Haven't you heard his famous "I Have a Dream" speech?

[video.search.yahoo.com]

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was important because he tried to put an end to racism and make peace for the world. He wanted people to be treated the equally and not differently. He wanted people to be able to go into the same spots and not have to go to different places. He wanted freedom for the world and be able to go places and be treated fairly.

He was important because he helped America from segregation of black and white people.

LOUDER FOR THOSE IN THE BACK!!!! 👍🏻👍🏻

@CarolinaGirl60

Thank you, dear. I appreciate you.

Plenty of religious leaders have rousing speeches. I am not decrying MLK. I am just wondering why a religious leader is the darling of the atheists while any other mention of religious functionaries are attacked for being Christian or Islamic or Jewish or Buddhist

Archbishops of Canterbury for example such as Rowan Williams and Justin Welby come in for abuse and they have done much to further the acceptance of gay rights and same sex marriage.

Just wondering, that’s all.

You seem quite uptight about it! I’ve not read a biography but I understand he could also be physically abusive and misogynistic from time to time
but hey, he does a good speech from time to time so that makes it okay.

@ToolGuy Wow. That was rude and uncalled for. I thought you were one of the more objective participants here.

Just pointing out that there is a contingent that attack anything which mentions God or Jesus or ministry, but MLK is fine.

Maybe instead of me STFU you could block me then there will be no need for you to respond in such an impolite manner.

@ToolGuy I said at the beginning of my response to Literate Hiker that I am not decrying MLK. And then I refer to Canterbury. Not clear where I am being dismissive.

Also not sure which bits I am cherry picking. Please let me know so that I may be able to amend my view.

@ToolGuy please re-iterate because it is not clear to me.

@ToolGuy First my comment about his speeches.
I am sure the speeches were very powerful and motivating. I am not decrying that at all.

My remark “so that makes it okay” merely challenges that a powerful speech counters alleged abuses, which are yet to be found and doesn’t challenge King’s gifts as an orator, but the desire of individuals to look past possible disturbing flaws in character.

The “How old are you” remark was from LH so I don’t see that is any concern between us.

I don’t understand why you are cutting and pasting the remarks of LH as your comments but I will re-iterate for your benefit.

Importance of King. I have nowhere said that he is not important. My question is why do some atheists revere a religious preacher when they take great pains to dismiss other religions Illuminati.

@Geoffrey51 @ToolGuy clearly, @ Geoffrey51 has no interest in learning anything; he’s too busy sea lioning those here trying to help him.

@CarolinaGirl60 Clearly. What does Sea lioning mean? I’ve not come across that phrase before. Thanks for the help.

@Geoffrey51 Use the Google.

@CarolinaGirl60 oh okay. I’ve not done any of that.

A comment was made and several people have responded, in most vociferous terms, without actually addressing the content of the original post.

As I said in the post, not sure how this is going to go down, now I know.

Thanks for the help anyway.

@Geoffrey51 Dude, lets be real: every responder here TRIED to address your original post. You refuse to follow links, read, learn something: that’s on YOU. If you choose to sea lion(trolling)...you’re going to be ignored like a child who is told why but keeps asking.
The adults get tired of it. So grow up, and do some research. Good day.

@CarolinaGirl60 Gawd. This post did hit a nerve! Thanks for your help.

8

For me, among some of the other reasons posted here, MLK was inclusive with whom he organized with. He didn't just march with other religious leaders, but secularists and atheists like A. Philip Randolph(which headed the March on Washington). I feel as though he understood that he needed to be able to reach across the table and join arms with even those that didn't share his religious beliefs. I can respect that. The only problems I have with religious leaders are the ones trying to push their "values" into the public sphere and/or legislation.

8

You can respect MLK the civil rights activist without respecting his crazy religious beliefs.

8

I respect religious people (leaders, followers, whatever the role) who choose to follow the most positive principles of their religion, and use those to help others. For example, this guy [patheos.com] is one of my favorites- and not just because he makes fun of the Left Behind books (although there is a lot of fun to be made there).

The Reverend King was not perfect, and never claimed to be perfect. It's well known that he liked a drink or five, he enjoyed the company of ladies considerably younger than his wife, he had a temper. And he was well aware of his failings, and strove to some extent to overcome them, with mixed success. But he never claimed to be better than anyone else- he was first among equals. Time and events cast him in a leadership role, and he took it up, when one gets the sense that he might have been happier staying out of the limelight, even though he also derived great satisfaction from the successes of his movement.

Personally, I respect him because, unlike so many "leaders" today, when he was vilified by those who opposed him, he never responded in kind. He refused to stoop to their level. I've read (although I don't recall where) that someone offered him blackmail material on J. Edgar Hoover, which he burned rather than use. He was fundamentally decent; which you can say about all too few of our "leaders" now.

8

In my opinion it is because MLK has given every human being a guarantee of civil rights. Before he came along most of us did not know what this was, or thought it was for black people only. Wrong. It is because of King and his movement that our government recognizes civil rights.

7

I do not "revere" MLK.

I respect some of the work he did as it related to the Civil Rights movement,
but I would have preferred someone who wasn't entrenched in religion.
However, given that his religious faith gave him credence among many who
might not have otherwise been moved by the message, he was the right person
for the time.
That said, he was a deeply flawed individual, just like everyone else.
He was a serial womanizer, and wasn't as "godly" as so many believe him
to have been.

It's happened that way throughout history.
Unfortunately, religion has played such a tremendous role with so many historic
"leaders". In some cases, that's all some people have to bring them together.

I agree. Everyone is flawed so it's best not to revere anyone. I remember reading about Gandhi. When he was living in South Africa during apartheid, he refused to ride in the 'black' carriages because he believed he was better than that. Of course I suspect he wasn't welcome in the 'white' carriages eithers.

7

For me, it's because his religion was all about liberating people rather than oppressing them. I'm cool with anyone who uses their imaginary friend as inspiration to be awesome. I may not share their beliefs but I share their values.

6

I try not to demean anyone.
I just ignore them.

6

Because most religious leaders don't practice what they preach. In other words, the world is full of hypocrites in places of religious authority. When a man stands for something in every part of his life, something noble and good, he deserves respect and admiration. It's not difficult to figure out.

6

I have often quoted MLK and others who are either religious leaders or are known to be people of faith. I don’t care about whether they believed in god or not, or represented religious bodies, if they have said or done something which I believe to be praiseworthy or meriting being remembered, I will say so.

5

Well the thing about Dr. King was, is even though he was a Reverend, he sought to end human suffering, he sought to end greed, he sought to bring equality to the forefront. He is somewhat of a folk hero. He stood againt the government and raised the peoples moral to empower them to fight these injustices. To me at the least he was a Bernie Sanders for the African American people. His message resonated far beyond race. True enough that he had a lot of enemies. All that means is he stood up for what he believed in. Bigotry began to become unpopular. His voice for nonviolence and love for all fellow humans was a timeless message that the ruling class did not want to get out. When he was shot in Memphis in 1968 he did not die right then. He died later in the hospital. There are some interesting interviews that took place with the hospital staff that suggest he was assassinated by the government to silence his message. Particularly his very popular messages against the war in Vietnam which was starting to unite people all across the country.

4

Do you mean like Joel Osoff, or Jim Baker (and Tammy too!) And other such predators?? Yes indeed, I demean them every chance I get!

I don’t know who they are. I am sure all the evangelicals have a special level of shonkiness!

@Geoffrey51 google them!

@PedalingOn yes i do mean Osteen, duhhhhh...Bakker doesn't deserve 2 "k's"

4

I would agree that many on this site act in such a manner. To their detriment, they overlook the fact that some religious leaders have profound thoughts and acts in relation to other sectors of life to their credit that benefit us all.

Good point.

4

You are wrong. There isn't any demeaning attitude to ALL religious leaders. Perhaps contempt is a better word but only for those who are hypocrites, albeit most of them. The contempt is justified due to the brainwashing that goes on from their part which is a danger to society. MLK was killed in the 60s, he was instrumental to the fight for equal rights for all, however misguided he might have been in the religious department, he redeemed himself by using his influence on a just cause not hatred. See any other "leader" doing something similar now that we have existencial threats? Nope. There's your answer.

Our reactions to and judgments of others are due at least as much to emotion as they are to reason and logic. It's not essentially about hypocrisy; it's more about a critical feeling or view about those who oppose our own world-views, our own values and convictions. We all naturally tend to feel hostile or critical of world-views that are enemy of our own, and towards those who hold such views.

@AlasBabylon Great response!

You are named after one of my favorite books.

@AlasBabylon to me it is all about hypocrisy, you can be a republican with diametrically opposing views to mine, but I will not feel hostile to you nor demean you just because you oppose my views, but if you are a hypocrite who claims to believe in republican values while doing exactly the opposite as most republicans are doing now, then I will definitely be hostile. So again, it is all about being essentially a hypocrite to me.

3

Far Eastern religions are probably not picked on as much as Christianity and Muslims.

Trod Level 5 Jan 28, 2020
3

Martin Luther started a movement and Martin Luther King was just as groundbreaking.
I think to discount the positive changes someone makes because they have differences to ourselves is slightly counter productive.
Plus they are relevant to their heritage and time in history.
Times are changing, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be learnt from movers and shakers of the past 😉
Yes to intelligent and insightful, also forward thinking and ground breaking. A pioneer.

3

Yes, there are many on this site who heap scorn, not only on religious leaders but on all religious people, demonizing and labeling them with various dehumanizing names. There are a few on here who react vociferously to any metaphysical idea that is at odds with their simplistic physicalist world view. You are correct to point out the incongruity with respect to Dr. King, but don’t expect much change. Those who rationalize have neat little thought-compartments, pre-labeled, where they keep their opinions, and those opinions are not subject to change.

Several times I have pointed out that Hilary Clinton is very much an “Evangelical”, yet not one response has ever been presented. The same people who rail against the religion of Mike Pence seem to almost worship Clinton, who actually aspires to become a preacher.

As a teenager I thought of MLK as a troublemaker. Later, in college, I decided that his social goals were legitimate. After the army I saw King as a great social reformer. Only in recent years have I paid attention to his religious views. Dr. King had very deep spiritual insight—he was first and foremost a great religious leader. Everything else was secondary.

@Allamanda I'd like to see some sources also. I don't remember anything that suggested HC wants to be an evangelical.

@Allamanda How anyone can be ignorant of Hilary Clinton’s Evangelical Faith is beyond me. Google and you’ll get lots of articles.

Here’s an article about her ministerial ambitions:

[theatlantic.com]

@Allamanda I assume that you gave me that link because The New Yorker labels the United Methodist Church as “Mainline” rather than the hated “Evangelical”.

Odd, but only a year ago I looked at the UMC website and they were loudly proclaiming themselves to be Evangelical. Suddenly a new spin is being given by the left-leaning press, and even Wikipedia has changed its slant. If the UMC is not Evangelical, then there is no such thing as an evangelical church. For example, The Southern Baptist Convention is very similar in doctrine and social policies. There is very little difference.

The press has built up this big whoop-de-doo over “Evangelicals”, and how, in their ignorance, racism, hypocrisy, and evil depravity they caused the election of Donald Trump. The whole campaign is nothing but a vicious lie. Trump was elected by a broad spectrum of Americans across the country. Very few people voted for Trump because of their church. It’s just that the most conservative areas happen, for historical reasons, to be protestant. Correlation does not equal causation.

@Allamanda I thought Wesley started preaching around the Bristol area. I may be wrong of course.

@Allamanda I knew about the Welsh presence. It seems to have had a strong Celtic following in that case. I wonder what happened in Devon and Somerset.

I am that pondering demographics and geography played a part more than message.

@Allamanda I have no idea what you are referring to. Is it the Atlantic Monthly article?

What is your response to that article? Yet again, facts that don’t fit preconceived ideas get ignored.

@Allamanda [umc.org]

This is very similar to the Baptist position.

@Allamanda [umnews.org]

The UMC considers itself evangelical.

@Allamanda Certainly the Cornish feel the separation. Love it down there. Lovely people that I have had association with anyway!

I agree with Hillary's POLITICS, so I voted for her.
I find it extremely hard to believe she is an "Evangelical," anyway! She's a pro-choice Evangelical? Really?
I doubt it.
I wouldn't vote for Mike Pence if you paid me (well, depends on how much, but you get the idea).
I have some agnostic "metaphysical" ideas, but they are hardly "religious." Are you confusing the meanings of the two words?

I’m a native of the South(North Carolina). I grew up going to a charismatic, evangelical, Baptist church. If Hillary is an American evangelical, I’ll eat my hat.

@Storm1752

“I have some agnostic "metaphysical" ideas, but they are hardly "religious." Are you confusing the meanings of the two words?”

My metaphysical ideas do not involve the supernatural, if that’s what you mean. The ideas fall under metaphysics only because they involve a part of nature that is not understood.

I consider myself to be a religious naturalist. There’s a good Wikipedia article on the subject.

3

People may have more than one facet to their character, and it is perfectly possible, and correct, to revere people for the good things that they do, yet not respect the bad. Indeed to do otherwise would be to give unqualified and thoughtless respect, which would not be worth having or giving.

I can, will and do respect, people such as the Dalai Lama or Justin Welby, our current archbishop of Canterbury, for their often humane and reasoned political and economic statements, but at the same time hold their offices in utter contempt. And never while respecting their statements on some aspects of morality forget that in one respect, people, who hold offices where they earn power and profit from deception, have lost their moral values completely in any real sense.

I understand. I know you accept a broad church so to speak!

3

The general tendency is due to tribalism, and the exception is required by political correctness, and motivated by virtue-signaling.

Am I cynical?

........Nah! 🤣

skado Level 9 Jan 26, 2020

"The general tendency" (to revere MLK?)
I respect his civil rights work
not his religious notions
"the exception is required by political correctness"-- FUCK pc bs, it attempts to force compliance without disscussion via peer or social pressure
" motivated by virtue-signaling"
UM, is not Political Correctness both a deterent to virtue signiling as it is also a form of virtue signiling?

@Davesnothere
No. The general tendency toward demeaning religious leaders; the exception being MLK. It’s all bs.

@skado Ok I get you

2

He wasn't looked upon favorably by most of the white majority. He was seen as dangerous which is why the FBi was constantly trying to get dirt on him. Since he never strayed from preaching non-violent resistance he was the easiest to let's say white wash.

2

MLK is revered for his accomplishments toward the betterment of humankind in general, and people of his race in particular. If he was just another religious preacher, we'd have forgotten him.

What's the last thing the Pope accomplished that was of any use to anyone? Aside from apologizing for the vast myriad of past church mistakes, that is. A hollow set of apologies, at that.

2

Yes, and he did not preach about damnation, actually I don't remember him preaching much about God, more about how humans treated each other.

2

For a more balanced view of King, one should read Ralph David Abernathy's "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down".

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:453415
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.