[Vision2020] No Surprise: Wilson Opposed MLK Day

[Saundra Lund]

Well, I guess I've been DUPED again by those durn liberals!

Here I thought MLK Day was to honor the life and accomplishments of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.  After all, in making MLK's birthday a national
holiday, the Congressional intent of the holiday is to "serve as a time for
Americans to reflect on the principles of racial equality and nonviolent
social change espoused by Martin Luther King, Jr." (36 USC, Section 169j).

According to Doug Wilson, I've been wrong all these years!  According to his
1/20/*1990* Lewiston Morning Tribune column "Liberal Guilt Designates
Holiday for a Scoundrel," it's liberal guilt (Wilson never explains what the
guilt is about, but I guess it's guilt over the scarlet stain of slavery on
our country's history) that motivated the holiday, rather King's work
towards racial equality through non-violent social protest.

Wilson wrote:
"Contrary to popular superstition, it is possible to have opposed the
politics of Dr. King without despising him on account of his race.  It
should also be noted that the politics of King still occupy a large segment
of our current events in the form of Jesse Jackson."

What does that mean???  That Wilson opposed King's heroic work towards
racial equality through non-violent means in our country?

I see . . . with respect to Southern slavery, a "gradual transformation"
non-violent abolition is what Doug Wilson et al would have supported, but
when it comes to eliminating contemporary racism, the kind of non-violent
social change Dr. King was devoted to is somehow different.  Hmmm . . . 

Wilson also wrote:
"It is also possible to oppose this national holiday on the grounds that it
is being used to further a particular current political agenda.  This is in
distinction from what a national holiday should be:  the recognition of
historical greatness from a sufficient distance to be able to make that
judgment competently."

Well, gee . . . I hope someone can help me out here because I'm absolutely
flummoxed in trying to figure out what "particular current political agenda"
Wilson was referring to.  For the life of me, I can't figure out what
political agenda Ronald Reagan, the president who signed the legislation
creating this holiday, and those durn guilty liberals shared.

I'm also not surprised that Wilson thinks it's up to him to tell the rest of
us what national holiday should be.  Not only does he feel justified telling
us what the Bible really means, now he thinks he's qualified to similarly
preach to us about how the government should determine what & whom to
recognize.  That arrogance really is quite unbecoming.

News Flash to David Douglas:  sorry, Martin Luther was a German (if my
memory, and public education, serve me correctly), so it's up to his
country, not ours, to recognize him with a national holiday  ;-)

I'm sorry Wilson doesn't think that the 15 years between MLK's death in 1968
and Reagan's signing the legislation in 1983 provided "sufficient distance"
to determine the "historical greatness" of MLK's contribution to the civil
rights movement.  Fortunately, the majority of this country doesn't suffer
the same ignorance as Wilson.

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering how Wilson et al would define "sufficient
distance" to determine the "historical greatness" of a person or event in
declaring a holiday?  Will Wilson et al next be going after Veterans Day
(formerly known as Armistice Day) because it was recognized as a holiday
only eight years after the end of World War I???

Wilson goes on to write:
"If someone does a black opponent the courtesy of treating him as a person,
with whom he disagrees, just like he does with other people, the liberal
doesn't know where to look."

Oh, I see . . . treating a black opponent as a *person* is a "courtesy."
Hmmm . . . that sounds patently offensive to me.  But, maybe I'm the one
who's wrong, because Wilson goes on to write:
"Blacks, like whites, are created in the image of God.  They both are to be
therefore treated with dignity."

Treating a black opponent as a person is a "courtesy," but we must treat all
(regardless of color) people with "dignity" because we are created in God's
image, not because of some fundamental human right.  Still sounds incredibly
offensive to me, but I'm sure one of Wilson's followers will straighten me
out!

Wilson ends his piece with:
"Martin Luther King was a man of great personal courage and ability, and if
we were not being pushed to support a national holiday in his honor, I would
be content to leave the matter there.  But the man was also a scoundrel.
Our culture is in the process of deifying him, and someone should point out
that we are not required to rewrite history for the sake of a little liberal
"good will.""

And, someone should also point out to Wilson et al that we are not required
to rewrite Southern slave history, or the recent controversy in our
community, for the sake of a little fringe theonomy.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
-Edmund Burke