[Vision2020] No Surprise: Wilson Opposed MLK Day

[Tom Hansen]

You are 100% correct, Saundra.  I spent a good portion of the day compiling
a history archive (consisting of photographs, copies of scanned historical
documents, and a wide range of audio files of Martin Luther King Jr.'s many
motivating speeches)

And to think that we don't get Robert E. Lee's birthday or Jefferson Davis'
birthday off.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
Not On The Palouse, Not Ever

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> Behalf Of Saundra Lund
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 2:36 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] No Surprise: Wilson Opposed MLK Day
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>