Comments on: More Martin Luther King Confusion From The Institute On The Constitution https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Wed, 30 May 2018 17:57:29 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: Warren https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/#comment-77573 Wed, 30 May 2018 17:57:29 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=15406#comment-77573 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).

]]> By: Tom Van Dyke https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/#comment-76940 Wed, 30 May 2018 17:53:17 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=15406#comment-76940

“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.”

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

]]> By: Patrocles https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/#comment-57741 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 09:05:42 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=15406#comment-57741 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)?

]]> By: Patrocles https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/#comment-76948 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 05:05:42 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=15406#comment-76948 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)?

]]> By: Eric https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/10/03/more-martin-luther-king-confusion-from-the-institute-on-the-constitution/#comment-57740 Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:00:18 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=15406#comment-57740 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!)

]]>