Anthony,

I see you have committed the common fallacy of equating morality with religion, when in fact they are usually mutually exclusive. In light of the recent news (Pat Robertson), I should think you Christianists would be laying low these days...

The beauty of Martin Luther King Jr. is that we all can appreciate and learn from his message, without having to adhere to the exclusionary, tribal dictates of religion, and the competition between religions, which you seem to advocate.

Andy's attempt to use Robertson to discredit Christian moral and social theory is gratuitous. Robertson is a wacko and has no place in this discussion.

Andy's second point is well taken, though I would phrase it somewhat differently. The genius of King was that he was able to translate his private, religious, moral thinking into a common language that all could share. The famous, "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty we're free at last," is an example that taps into the long tradition in American political culture of the freedom motif. Even the "thank God Almighty" can be taken by atheists as an expression of emotional exuberance, not as a literal claim to ascribe the freedom to the intervention of a supernatural being. All people of faith (including the faith of science) should participate in the social and political debates, but like King they need to translate their message into a language that all can share. Not easy, I know, but necessary in the modern world. There are a bunch of reasons why I would vote to increase my taxes to assist the poor, but because "that's what Jesus would do" is not one of them.

I would like to point out that King's justice narrative is more Jewish than Christian, and, hence, his references to the Torah, not the New Testament. From what I understand, Jesus's social theory had less to do with justice than with a notion of "love," that is, a moral theory grounded in altruism, not justice per se.

Good piece, Tony. I believe strongly in separation of church and state and am, myself, a secular person. But I regret the trend toward the presumption that religious- or church-based activities, in and of themselves, should be excluded from respectable civic life or, in some cases, derided as having ulterior purpose---as during the uproar during the Bush years over "faith-based" efforts serving the poor, uneducated, or distressed. Religion played a far larger role in public life in the founding and early years of our Republic (read the statements and documents of the period) until our quite recent history.

I was around and active in public life during the Rev. Martin Luther King's rise to powerful influence. It is intellectually dishonest to
pretend, now, that the religious basis of his teachings was somehow
irrelevant.

Very good article. Underlying your very fine survey is the (I think, correct) assumption that it is the Christian faith that is central and not a belief in God. I think those of us who were raised as Christians but do not believe in God are very likely to still be Christians.

It's funny. Many religious people think their ideas should be a focus in the public realm, but they don't think non-belief should get the same treatment, even occasionally. It's a double standard. Not that I want my beliefs (i.e. lack of) to get their own shrine in public parks of course.

Tony: Good piece. I think religion belongs in the public square. It is fascinating to visit countries (like India) where spiritual explorations are part of daily news, discussion and reflection. But religion's use in the public square is limited: in a pluralistic democracy, policy debates needs to be centered on facts and shared realities. A believer might be annoyed by secularists, pagans, atheists or what have you, but you cannot persuade them with religious arguments. Dr. King was effective because, while religiously motivated and inspired, he was able to transcend religion by appealing to principles that were widely shared across religious lines. Even people hostile to Christianity can admire King, not because of his religion but in spite of it. That's partly because he spoke powerfully to the public without emphasizing conversion or suggesting that the Judeo-Christian tradition has a monopoly on moral values.

I'm glad you wrote this piece and made it clear that Reverend King's religious convictions were not merely incidental to his actions, but inseparable.

The role of religion in American public life is complicated indeed. Christianity has been at the center of many of the major social movements throughout American history, including abolition, temperence, and civil rights. This has been for better (e.g. Reverend King) or worse (e.g. John Brown). But in any event, where you see the strongest movements for social change in America, you are likely to see Christian conviction at the core.

Many liberals like to bash religion as being a retardant of progress, and this is not only wrong but a major political blunder. When it comes to matters of poverty, civil rights, the environment, and war and peace, liberals should look to those with Christian convictions as indispensible allies.

Of course, Christian conviction has also quite often been reactionary instead of progressive. As was the case with the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s and the Christian right in the 1970s, people often turn to religious conviction as a kind of fortress against the perceived evils in society.

I agree; let's break the taboo and have a broader discussion of religion in the public sphere that goes beyond militant atheists and fundamentalist Christians. When we do, we will find that the array of experiences we have is larger than any of us imagined.

You know, I think it's a case of the columnist, and the rest of you fundies who agree with him being jealous that Dr. King's message and personae transcending any all religious dogma, rising up to a level of a more secular and human message of loving your fellow man dispite their social or religious background. You are all left with hatemongers and moneygrubbing charlatans like Pat Robertson and Pope Benedict and Jimmy Swaggert and Oral Roberts to represent you. Here's a bit of history lesson. Even though Dr. King was a Christian, he had the progressive insight to seek other faiths and disciplines to shape his message. His biggest influence, perhaps just as big as Christ, was Gandhi. He decidedly was not Christian. In fact he was quoted as saying "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ,". Gee? Talking about you guys, perhaps? To use schoolyard jargon, no takebacks. Dr King and his message isn't the sole property of one religion. Had he a more exclusive, reactionary message as you guys seem to embrace, he might be alive. But he stepped beyond his Bible and the confines of his church to present a revolutionary message that we can all embrace. And he paid the ultimate price for it. I dare any of you fundies to do better!

Why is it that people even care whether or not other people are religious? What important difference does it make?

These are not frivolous questions.

"I think it would be far more interesting and helpful to inhabit a world where the relative merits of Buddhism and Christianity, New Age and Judaism...are in lively debate." I find that difficult to swallow. My measure of others is whether or not they are "good" people. What constitutes good, I think, differ from person to person. Is a Christian who lives his or her values "good"? Is a Christian who speaks those values but not carry them out still "good"? Am I "good" if I am not a Christian? For some, the answer to that last question would be no. I won't even go there in discussions with others because all that happens is I must defend myself. The "lively debate" you encourage turns out to be little more than a judgment system of others and is of limited use in examining someone's legacy upon this earth.

Now that Dr. King has a county named after him, he's had to give up religion. There's a severe separation of church and state issue in having a governmental entity named after a preacher.

Why is mentioning Pat Robertson gratuitous? Who says it has no place in this discussion? You? Your version of religion? This is the problem with religion in the public square--you get dictates like this with not even a nod toward critical thinking. "Oh, his religion is not the real one--mine is!".

As far as a "lively debate" about the merits of this religion or that--how lively do you want it? It seem like it is pretty darn lively right now.

"Why is it that people even care whether or not other people are religious? What important difference does it make?" -- badbounder

It makes all the difference in the world. But let's scrap the word "religious" and "religion." Let's just refer to these notions as opinions - opinions about what is important, opinions about humanity and our origins, our opinions about right and wrong.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King came by his convictions because of, rather than in spite of, his opinions about and his devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Just listen to King's speeches. You cannot understand, truly, what the Rev. Dr. King was talking about without a rudimentary understanding of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. For instance, in the Rev. Dr. King's 1956 speech, "Paul's Letter to American Christians," he stated: "I, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to you who are in America, Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." What was the Rev. Dr. King talking about? What point was he making? King attached great importance to the Bible and its teachings - that is an inescapable conclusion.

Human chattel slavery was a brutal fact of human history from time immemorial. Then along came William Wilberforce, a radical devotee of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who raised his voice in protest against the slave trade. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Later, the abolitionist movement in the United States was predominantly led by devoted - by today's standards radical - followers of the teachings of Jesus. The civil rights movement of the 1960's became a movement which could not be stopped once the followers of Jesus in the churches became involved and caught the Rev. Dr. King's vision, later being joined by others jumping on the freedom train. That's history.

So, that's what important difference it makes. All the difference in the world.

Paul expresses his support of the institution of human slavery by instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5, I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10.

It really is better to leave religion out of this day. Please.

Gee, that's a great idea, Tony. Why don't you and Pat Robertson debate the merits of your respective faiths on channel 243.

But my dad, who was actually a sort of religious guy who 'rode circuit' for a while and then helped found a church, he taught me it was bad manners to discuss religion or politics, around the dinner table or more generally usually in public.

Most of us have no objection to you sounding off about your religion when you want to. We're just not that interested, mainly because of the appalling examples before us, and all of previous history.

It is important to know how religious belief informs the actions of leaders. The elements of Christianity that The Rev Dr King chose as his guide emphasized justice, caring for others and peace. It is good to remember that other leaders have found calls to vengence, intolerance and exclusion in their understanding of the same religion. We won't know these things if religion becomes a taboo subject for public discussion for people who seek leadership.

The danger comes when people in power try to compel others to comply with their religious beliefs. This danger is the reason for the First Amendment but government is not the only place of power.

I'm remind Mr. Robinson and others that one of Dr. King's closest advisors was Abraham Joshua Heschell. He marched with Dr. King; he went to jail with Dr. King. He was Jewish. Many of the freedom riders who risked their lives down South were Jewish. Many of the lawyers who helped in voter registration were Jewish. The concept of justice in Christianity was taken from the Jewish prophets.

The term "religion" should not be equated with Christianity. Dr. King was Christian but I think he would have been a little surprised and embarassed at Mr. Robinson's insistence on emphasizing his particular brand of religion.

And this article alone is evidence that we don't exactly kick religion to the curb in public discourse. If that were true, the article wouldn't have appeared, would it.

Robinson suggests an exciting prospect when he writes: " I think it would be far more interesting and helpful to inhabit a world where the relative merits of Buddhism and Christianity, New Age and Judaism, .... are in lively debate." I hope he will include non-believers is working on truly open debates with no (civil) holds barred. Those would truly be events not be missed and would be a shopper's dream.

Buster G.

Historically, when people have told Jews that they'd be better off converting, it was a bad sign. Next came demands to convert, then threats, and finally persecution and murder. That's happened with Roman pagans, Christians, and Moslems. So if America becomes generally a place where Christians routinely criticize one's faith and suggest conversion, it will make American Jews uneasy. I don't know if that matters to you.