Michael Peroutka has a new video out which appears to be an indirect response from the Institute on the Constitution to the recent initiative of the Cincinnati Area Pastors. CAP recently called on the National Religious Broadcasters to cut ties with the Institute due to Peroutka’s leadership in the white nationalist group League of the South. Peroutka is a board member of the League and has pledged the work of the IOTC to the League’s efforts.
In the new video, Peroutka again tries to make the case that Martin Luther King did not call for civil rights. Peroutka first made this claim on the Steve Deace Show, where he falsely claimed that King did not call for civil rights in his I Have A Dream speech.
After watching the clip, I am as confused as I was after his appearance on the Deace broadcast. First of all, he presents a truncated view of what King advocated and then he ignores contradictory messages on his own website and from the League of the South, a group which he has pledged the IOTC to advance.
First, I will revisit some material from an earlier post on the subject, and then embed the video.
On the Steve Deace Show, League of the South board member Michael Peroutka said that Martin Luther King did not call for civil rights in the 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. During hour one at 28:46, Peroutka said about King:
He was claiming rights for people that were promised in the Declaration of Independence but never in that speech did he actually call for civil rights.He was a champion, I believe, of God-given rights, what has been perverted and now called civil rights, he didn’t call them civil rights, I believe he was a champion of God-given rights. He said in that address, he made it clear that he wasn’t saying the rights he was demanding originated in human government, but he said that a right to equality before the law is ordained by God, and therefore it is a right the civil government has a duty to protect and defend.
Anyone who has read any of King’s speeches would know that he constantly called for civil rights, including in the 1963 speech given at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Here is the segment of the speech where King referred to civil rights:
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.
King was clearly including himself as a devotee of civil rights. King also spoke of the indignity of discrimination based on skin color (“For Whites Only”). However, an article on Michael Peroutka’s IOTC website titled “Discrimination” and written by Frederick Nymeyer asserts, “We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish.” On Peroutka’s League of the South website, League president Michael Hill defended those discriminatory Jim Crow laws:
Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population.
In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King repeatedly called for civil rights, especially noting the importance of the Civil Rights Act. King began his speech:
It is impossible to begin this lecture without again expressing my deep appreciation to the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament for bestowing upon me and the civil rights movement in the United States such a great honor.
It is jarring to hear a board member of the League of the South invoke Martin Luther King in a positive manner. As I have documented previously, those associated with both the League and Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution revile King on their websites. On Peroutka’s IOTC website, Director of Communications John Lofton proclaims: “Don’t Need Federal Holidays And Certainly Not One ‘Honoring’ The Dishonorable Martin Luther King, Jr. Who Fails His Own Character Test.”
League president Michael Hill denigrated King’s civil rights movement in an essay on the League’s website titled: “What Would It Take To Get You To Fight?”
Sadly, our true interests were compromised and sold for a mess of pottage by our so-called leaders a long time ago. For instance, if the South had had real leaders of the people there would have been no second reconstruction known as the civil rights movement.
In another essay, Hill wrote:
The corruption we see today on the Potomac and Wall Street began right away with the Grant administration. Subsequently, we got an empire (the Yanks were just practicing on Dixie), a Federal Reserve system, an Income Tax, the 17th Amendment (which practically destroyed the 10th and States Rights), two World Wars, taken off the gold standard, a Great Depression, another invasion of the South through the civil rights movement (what we Southerners rightly call the Second Reconstruction), the moral rot of the 1960s, sunk up to the neck in the Middle East, three clueless Baby Boomer Presidents (Bill, George, and Barry), the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, a police/surveillance State, and now bankrupted by the Banksters and their political whores in Congress. And I’m supposed to cheer all this on by singing the National Anthem, saluting the Stars and Stripes, and saying the Pledge of Allegiance? No thanks, I’ll pass.
I wonder if Mr. Peroutka agrees with his fellow board member that the civil rights movement was a negative development and a second reconstruction. This is the same civil rights movement that Peroutka is now relabeling and extolling. Perhaps, Mr. Peroutka’s education efforts need to start with his League president.
I doubt such education would help; here is a League of the South press release on King:
Only a sick and reprobate society would elevate Martin Luther King, Jr., and demonize Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The former sought to manipulate white guilt and use the power of national government for the ends of black racial advancement; the latter risked their lives on the field of battle to preserve the true principles of Constitutional government and the integrity of their homeland. To King and his ilk (both then and now), the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are nothing more than words to be twisted in service of the liberal vision of the good life. To Lee and Jackson, and those who honor them, they are the wellsprings of Christian liberty and prosperity.
There can be no compromise between the worldviews of those who follow MLK and those who salute Lee and Jackson. Moreover, there is no way that a man can, in good conscience, pay homage to both sides at the same time.
Does Peroutka disagree here with Hill and the League? Did Peroutka not know Hill’s views when he pledged the resources of his family and the IOTC to the work of the League of the South? According to the League press release, King twists the words of the Constitution and Bible to serve a liberal vision. Has Peroutka left the League of the South’s talking points, or is he doing some twisting of his own?
Mr. Peroutka said that it is shameful to elevate or denigrate someone on the basis of skin color. I agree and recommend that he read the articles I cited above on the website of the organization he leads and the following articles on his own website.
R.L. Dabney on Civil Government (for commentary, read here)
Discrimination (for commentary, read here)
To be taken seriously, Peroutka and his supporters should confront the rest of what the IOTC and League say about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Perhaps Mr. Peroutka is reconsidering his support for the League of the South vision of an ethno-nationalist (white dominated) Southern nation. If so, it would be helpful if he came out and said so.
Roll the tape:
League of the South members who read here; what do you think of the new video?
Eric – I don’t see the contrast. It seems to me that Peroutka isn’t contrasting King’s view with his own. He is claiming that King’s call for civil rights was something other than what King said it was.
In any case, I can’t really tell from your comment, but I think you might be overlooking the jarring inconsistency of lauding something on one hand, when it is denied on the other (his own website and the website of his other organization – the League of the South).
Technically, Warren, your objection is correct. MLK DID use the term “civil rights.” However, as “Eric” notes
Eric# ~ Oct 3, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Peroutka is contrasting natural law with legal positivism. The Rev Dr.’s training differs from a JD’s training. No surprise here, other than Peroutka using the term “civil rights” differently than Dr. King did.
“natural law” and “God-given rights” aren’t synonymous with “civil rights.”
For example, the right to trial by jury is an established constitutional “civil” right, but is it a God-given “natural” right? Certainly not. Much of Europe has professional panels of jurists who are judge and jury in criminal trials, and one might argue they do a better job of it all than America does.
“[MLK] said that a right to equality before the law is ordained by God, and therefore it is a right the civil government has a duty to protect and defend.”
That’s a completely valid argument per the Declaration for why governments exist, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
I mean, if you want to beat these guys, you have to beat them fair and square. Per Eric’s comment obove, you need to tell your readers what Petrouka might mean by “civil rights”–and without subjecting myself to this video, I’ll guess he means affirmative action, the welfare state, Obamacare, whathaveyou—which are perhaps political, “civil” rights, but are of questionable status as God-given, natural rights.
Or you can just call these guys racists and fascists and cementheads and whatnot and avoid all the toil and trouble of winning the argument honestly. Probably it’s best you stick with that rhetorical strategy. You wouldn’t be wrong, mind you. They are. ;-P
May I recall a bit of history? Jews and Christians began with a belief in god-given rights. Christianity blended Jewish Religion with Greek (Aristotelian) philosophy and so the Catholic Church blended god-given rights with the Aristotelian idea of “natural” rights , resulting from human nature (the connecting point was the idea of a “universal revelation” even before Mosaic law and Christian gospel).
Aristoteles became quite unfashionable after the 15th century. And even if Lutherans tended to follow the Catholic system, Calvinists opposed it. Calvinists stressed the fact that God hat given his norms by his own free will, not following any objective rules – and that God’s norms were valuable because they were given by God and not by (alleged) human capacities like reason – In a word, what Calvinists maintained was the legal positivism of God in theological ethics.
There’s a grain of truth everywhere, and the grain of truth here is: “Natural rights” tend to be a blunder and a humbug. Aristoteles himself argued that slaves were enslaved by natural right. The Catholic church maintained that there’s no right for homosexual intercourse because it is not natural. And so on … you can justify nearly everything on the base of “natural rights”.
Notwithstanding, or just because of that, equalizing of “god-given” with “natural” and “universal” became very popular, (above all in the fight against secular legal positivism). (On the other hand, Calvinist theologians, rightwing Princetonians as well as leftwing Barthians, refused this equalizing – I repeat that modern Evangelicalism was highly influenced by Princetonian Calvinism.),
MLK chose his words not according to theological clearness but according to effect. The rights he promoted were always the same and could be called “god-given”, “natural” or “civil” w.r.t. the public he spoke to.
Peroutka is right insofar as MLK spoke about god-given laws in a theocratical way. (it was the task of the saints to enforce these laws on the white southern heathens).
But Peroutka does not reflect on MLKs’ posiiton w.r.t. to an identity of “god-given” with “natural” or “universal/non-positivist” rights, probably because Peroutka (perhaps rightly) thinks that the latter words are hollow and there is no clear idea behind them. Aren’t laws always either god-given or man-given (positivist)?
May I recall a bit of history? Jews and Christians began with a belief in god-given rights. Christianity blended Jewish Religion with Greek (Aristotelian) philosophy and so the Catholic Church blended god-given rights with the Aristotelian idea of “natural” rights , resulting from human nature (the connecting point was the idea of a “universal revelation” even before Mosaic law and Christian gospel).
Aristoteles became quite unfashionable after the 15th century. And even if Lutherans tended to follow the Catholic system, Calvinists opposed it. Calvinists stressed the fact that God hat given his norms by his own free will, not following any objective rules – and that God’s norms were valuable because they were given by God and not by (alleged) human capacities like reason – In a word, what Calvinists maintained was the legal positivism of God in theological ethics.
There’s a grain of truth everywhere, and the grain of truth here is: “Natural rights” tend to be a blunder and a humbug. Aristoteles himself argued that slaves were enslaved by natural right. The Catholic church maintained that there’s no right for homosexual intercourse because it is not natural. And so on … you can justify nearly everything on the base of “natural rights”.
Notwithstanding, or just because of that, equalizing of “god-given” with “natural” and “universal” became very popular, (above all in the fight against secular legal positivism). (On the other hand, Calvinist theologians, rightwing Princetonians as well as leftwing Barthians, refused this equalizing – I repeat that modern Evangelicalism was highly influenced by Princetonian Calvinism.),
MLK chose his words not according to theological clearness but according to effect. The rights he promoted were always the same and could be called “god-given”, “natural” or “civil” w.r.t. the public he spoke to.
Peroutka is right insofar as MLK spoke about god-given laws in a theocratical way. (it was the task of the saints to enforce these laws on the white southern heathens).
But Peroutka does not reflect on MLKs’ posiiton w.r.t. to an identity of “god-given” with “natural” or “universal/non-positivist” rights, probably because Peroutka (perhaps rightly) thinks that the latter words are hollow and there is no clear idea behind them. Aren’t laws always either god-given or man-given (positivist)?
As you know, I have pointed out things that IOTC puts out that aren’t so. That doesn’t seem terribly effective either.
Forgive me for failing to extend a sincere thanks. So…
Thank you very much!
I was happy to see the critique of substance.
I’m afraid is won’t be effective. Sort of like telling kids they’ll regret the artificial colors in those lollipops in another half century.
We’re stuck with the difficulty of building market share for “Getting the Constitution Right.” (Maybe the first step would be writing that book!)
If you want an “effective” strategy, you should try to develop a coherent theologico-political position of your own. Then the different positions could be debated in the light of each other. (Karl Popper: Theories must be debated “in the light of alternatives”. It wouldn’t be so stupid to read Popper!)
If you don’t have to offer a theologico-political position of your own – why, for god’s sake, should people care about you?
Peroutka’s problem is the distinction between two sources of moral and rights. On one hand, there are the “god-given” rights, whose source are the particular Judeo-Christian religions (or religion). On the other hands are “civil” rights. That makes sense when he looks at civil rights as the outcome of “civil religion” (a post-Christian universalist state religion as the source of moral and rights). And I suppose that it is just that what he intends.
Eric – As you know, I have pointed out things that IOTC puts out that aren’t so. That doesn’t seem terribly effective either.
Tom, thanks for your (very) constructive comment–you fleshed things out nicely.
Or you can just call these guys racists and fascists and cementheads and whatnot and avoid all the toil and trouble of winning the argument honestly. Probably it’s best you stick with that rhetorical strategy. You wouldn’t be wrong, mind you.
The difficulty I have with that strategy is IotC is popular among conservatives in my area. Since the targets of this training are not racists and fascists and cementheads, we need some de-programming skills, or at least a “things you learned from IotC that aren’t so” FAQ.
This is especially ugly if IotC trainees attempt to evaluate public school social studies curricula. And the Left seems delighted when religious left versus religious right conflict hits the pages of “Church and State.”
As you know, I have pointed out things that IOTC puts out that aren’t so. That doesn’t seem terribly effective either.
Forgive me for failing to extend a sincere thanks. So…
Thank you very much!
I was happy to see the critique of substance.
I’m afraid is won’t be effective. Sort of like telling kids they’ll regret the artificial colors in those lollipops in another half century.
We’re stuck with the difficulty of building market share for “Getting the Constitution Right.” (Maybe the first step would be writing that book!)
If you want an “effective” strategy, you should try to develop a coherent theologico-political position of your own. Then the different positions could be debated in the light of each other. (Karl Popper: Theories must be debated “in the light of alternatives”. It wouldn’t be so stupid to read Popper!)
If you don’t have to offer a theologico-political position of your own – why, for god’s sake, should people care about you?
Peroutka’s problem is the distinction between two sources of moral and rights. On one hand, there are the “god-given” rights, whose source are the particular Judeo-Christian religions (or religion). On the other hands are “civil” rights. That makes sense when he looks at civil rights as the outcome of “civil religion” (a post-Christian universalist state religion as the source of moral and rights). And I suppose that it is just that what he intends.
Eric – As you know, I have pointed out things that IOTC puts out that aren’t so. That doesn’t seem terribly effective either.
Tom, thanks for your (very) constructive comment–you fleshed things out nicely.
Or you can just call these guys racists and fascists and cementheads and whatnot and avoid all the toil and trouble of winning the argument honestly. Probably it’s best you stick with that rhetorical strategy. You wouldn’t be wrong, mind you.
The difficulty I have with that strategy is IotC is popular among conservatives in my area. Since the targets of this training are not racists and fascists and cementheads, we need some de-programming skills, or at least a “things you learned from IotC that aren’t so” FAQ.
This is especially ugly if IotC trainees attempt to evaluate public school social studies curricula. And the Left seems delighted when religious left versus religious right conflict hits the pages of “Church and State.”
There are people who have ideas which truly are contradictory due to some deeply held belief – whether it be political or religious. Look at what a Quatari minister said about a blasphemy law the Arabs are promoting. He says that jailing someone for talking out against religion does not in any way stop freedom of expression:
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/arab-blasphemy-law-being-drafted-1.1238319
Oh, and they want to put people on trial outside their country. Some people just don’t understand real freedom.
He is claiming that King’s call for civil rights was something other than what King said it was
There’s Rev. Dr. King and then there’s King the radical–embraced by Bill Ayers and his wife. I can’t speak to King the radical, nor would I be surprised if folks misrepresented him to serve their political agenda.
The Rev. Dr. King supports natural law from the Christian perspective. Peroutka conflates legal positivism (which King implicitly rejects) with “civil rights.” (Peroutka made that very clear in the video.)
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King argues (via Aquinas and Augustine) for the natural right to civil disobedience. So King rejects the dichotomy between civil rights and natural rights that Peroutka embraces.
Of course, it could be that Peroutka deliberately conflates civil rights with legal positivism because legal positivism is easier to argue against.
Finally, I just took a break to consult wikipedia and found (in their view) my use of the term “legal positivism” is overly expansive as a legal positivist could recognize a natural right to civil disobedience.
There are people who have ideas which truly are contradictory due to some deeply held belief – whether it be political or religious. Look at what a Quatari minister said about a blasphemy law the Arabs are promoting. He says that jailing someone for talking out against religion does not in any way stop freedom of expression:
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/arab-blasphemy-law-being-drafted-1.1238319
Oh, and they want to put people on trial outside their country. Some people just don’t understand real freedom.
He is claiming that King’s call for civil rights was something other than what King said it was
There’s Rev. Dr. King and then there’s King the radical–embraced by Bill Ayers and his wife. I can’t speak to King the radical, nor would I be surprised if folks misrepresented him to serve their political agenda.
The Rev. Dr. King supports natural law from the Christian perspective. Peroutka conflates legal positivism (which King implicitly rejects) with “civil rights.” (Peroutka made that very clear in the video.)
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King argues (via Aquinas and Augustine) for the natural right to civil disobedience. So King rejects the dichotomy between civil rights and natural rights that Peroutka embraces.
Of course, it could be that Peroutka deliberately conflates civil rights with legal positivism because legal positivism is easier to argue against.
Finally, I just took a break to consult wikipedia and found (in their view) my use of the term “legal positivism” is overly expansive as a legal positivist could recognize a natural right to civil disobedience.
Technically, Warren, your objection is correct. MLK DID use the term “civil rights.” However, as “Eric” notes
Eric# ~ Oct 3, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Peroutka is contrasting natural law with legal positivism. The Rev Dr.’s training differs from a JD’s training. No surprise here, other than Peroutka using the term “civil rights” differently than Dr. King did.
“natural law” and “God-given rights” aren’t synonymous with “civil rights.”
For example, the right to trial by jury is an established constitutional “civil” right, but is it a God-given “natural” right? Certainly not. Much of Europe has professional panels of jurists who are judge and jury in criminal trials, and one might argue they do a better job of it all than America does.
“[MLK] said that a right to equality before the law is ordained by God, and therefore it is a right the civil government has a duty to protect and defend.”
That’s a completely valid argument per the Declaration for why governments exist, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
I mean, if you want to beat these guys, you have to beat them fair and square. Per Eric’s comment obove, you need to tell your readers what Petrouka might mean by “civil rights”–and without subjecting myself to this video, I’ll guess he means affirmative action, the welfare state, Obamacare, whathaveyou—which are perhaps political, “civil” rights, but are of questionable status as God-given, natural rights.
Or you can just call these guys racists and fascists and cementheads and whatnot and avoid all the toil and trouble of winning the argument honestly. Probably it’s best you stick with that rhetorical strategy. You wouldn’t be wrong, mind you. They are. ;-P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Eric – I don’t see the contrast. It seems to me that Peroutka isn’t contrasting King’s view with his own. He is claiming that King’s call for civil rights was something other than what King said it was.
In any case, I can’t really tell from your comment, but I think you might be overlooking the jarring inconsistency of lauding something on one hand, when it is denied on the other (his own website and the website of his other organization – the League of the South).
Peroutka is contrasting natural law with legal positivism. The Rev Dr.’s training differs from a JD’s training. No surprise here, other than Peroutka using the term “civil rights” differently than Dr. King did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Peroutka is contrasting natural law with legal positivism. The Rev Dr.’s training differs from a JD’s training. No surprise here, other than Peroutka using the term “civil rights” differently than Dr. King did.