In times of massive political upheaval such as what we are now witnessing, America’s Christian preacher and martyr, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is worth remembering.
He discusses in his “Letter from The Birmingham Jail“, the question of how unjust laws produce unjust societies. The question becomes: To what degree are new laws introduced in order to subdue citizens, control them or deprive them of their natural rights?
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. writes: “To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
“All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.”
“We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”
“But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws.”
“If the laws are just, this is no problem. But if the laws are unjust and represent a violation against certain minorities or the majority, while others are given the right to forcefully step on “the little man”, the laws become a problem. The legal system then becomes a problem, because it institutionalizes injustice.”
One may ask: Does our current neo-Marxist Western moral codex that so highly proclaims itself as the nemesis of the traditional, Christian values that Dr. King fought for, does the progressive, permissive nihilism provide more justice to all? Or less justice between groups?
Does it provide more respect for the natural plurality in society, or less?
Does it respect differences of opinion or not? What about diversity, are we allowed to be different and think differently? Does the moral codex motivate individuals for solidarity and empathy? Does it provide wealth to its citizens or only to the elites?
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: ”There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed.”
“In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”
“Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But they went on with the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven” and had to obey God rather than man.”
“They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.”
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Brutally Ruthless Marxism: A study of Karl Marx, Communism and Socialism
- The Scorned Christian Values of Martin Luther King Jr.
- We have lost politeness, civility, good manners with detrimental effects on society, says Reginald Davis
- The Bible is by far the most read book in the world, and for good reasons
- The Metaphysical World and its Relevance to our Existence
The German philosopher Hannah Arendt who lived to see World War II and the totalitarian Nazi regime up close, wrote The Origins of Totalitarianism in which she discussed how it was possible for a democratic state such as Germany to turn into a cold blooded totalitarian state.
Wasn’t modern society with its technological advances and eradication of poverty supposed to bring us closer to freedom for all? asks historian, author and founder of The Herland Report, Hanne Nabintu Herland.
Arendt makes the point that a totalitarian system may become even worse than dictatorships, as dictatorships are more honest about its threats towards its population while totalitarian systems rely on creating fear.
The aim in totalitarian systems is to control every aspect of a person’s life, his views on the family, genders, his feelings towards the church, religion – every aspect of life.
In such states, the population is held in fear of repercussions from the police and state authorities, in constant fear of losing their jobs, their reputation, their friends.
Fear becomes the tool to keep the population in check. One of Arendt’s main points was that precisely because modern democracies incorporates well developed institutions and the hierarchical structure, people tend to obey orders. They view themselves as part of a system with little or no personal responsibility.
Arendt found that it was not the desire to be brutal to certain ethnic groups such as Jews and Gypsies, that was the root cause for the “obedience towards the state” that permeated the German society.
It was the indifference, lack of empathy and willingness to obey status quo that permeated the German population.
Since group think was vital in this society, no one dared to step out of the group. Those who did, quickly ended up in the same concentration camps where intellectual dissidents joined the Jews and others who were unwanted.
The distinction between laws that provide more freedom and justice and laws that ensure state censorship and fear, is of immanent importance. The value system in a society – its moral codex –is key.
Does our current neo-Marxist Western moral codex provide more justice to all? Or less justice between groups? Does it provide more respect for plurality or less?
Does it respect differences of opinion or not? What about diversity, are we allowed to be different and think differently? Does the moral codex motivate individuals for solidarity and empathy? Does it provide wealth to its citizens or only to the elites?
