As we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy, it’s important to appreciate just how hard-fought this holiday was.
Shortly after King’s assassination, Democratic Representative John Conyers introduced a bill to make King’s birthday a national holiday. One might assume that this was an easy affirmative vote, and the bill quickly cleared both houses of Congress. But, in fact, the legislation wasn’t even considered until over a decade later! And when considered in the 1979 session and again in 1980, it was defeated—with Republican Senators John McCain and Jesse Helms leading the opposition.
Finally, in 1983, the bill passed with an overwhelming majority and in spite of President Reagan’s threatened veto. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day still faced some hurdles, however.
Some states refused to honor the holiday. Utah held out the longest, failing to recognize the holiday from 1986 to 2000. Instead, Utah only observed “Human Rights Day.” That euphemism still remains popular in Utah and Idaho.
Utah’s reluctance to honor King was undoubtedly influenced by the state’s dominant religion: Mormonism. Many LDS authorities were vehemently opposed to the civil rights movement.*
Perhaps the most prominent LDS voice against what he called the “so-called civil rights movement” was Ezra Taft Benson. Benson served as president of the LDS Church at the time when Martin Luther King Jr. Day became a federal holiday. And while he never publicly denounced the holiday, he nonetheless helped shape Utah’s negative perception of King. Of King, and just a year after his assassination, Benson wrote, “the kindest thing that could be said about Martin Luther King is that he was an effective Communist tool. Personally, I think he was more than that.” The view that the civil rights movement and its leaders were a front for some communist agenda was a constant theme of Benson’s; he once even espoused it in General Conference.
Benson was widely known for his conservative politics–both in and outside the church. For his views on civil rights and communism, he won praise from the far-right John Birch Society and was even considered as a running-mate for segregationist third-party candidates Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.
I’m glad that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day triumphed over politics and prejudice. King—or rather, what he represented—is worth honoring. His message, though, has been neutered in recent decades (ironically, because of the federal holiday that bears his name). Most remember him only as a slain civil rights leader, but he was more than that. And to appropriately honor his legacy, we must first understand it.
Benson and the Republican in Congress weren’t entirely wrong about King: he was a radical. While no communist, King was a critic of capitalism and a champion of the poor—advocating things like affordable housing and health care. His economic views also informed his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he felt was an aggressive act of colonialism. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” he said.
America has made significant (though insufficient) strides toward racial tolerance since the civil rights movement. Prescient though he was, I don’t think King could have predicted the election of a black president. But with our continued occupation of Iraq, escalating involvement in Afghanistan, and the inaccessibility of health care for millions of Americans, much of King’s dream is still unrealized.
So let’s recommit ourselves to that dream today and work to see it realized in this new year.
*In a 1947 letter to USU sociology professor Lowry Nelson, the First Presidency called interracial marriages “most repugnant” and “contrary to Church doctrine.” Apostles Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen not only defended the church’s black priesthood ban, but went further in arguing for segregation more generally. McConkie wrote that blacks were a “spiritually inferior” race who were consigned to be “a caste apart.” And Peterson told an audience at BYU that “the Lord segregated the Negro” and asked, “who is man to change that segregation?”
If gay marriage is a civil right, then organizations that refuse to adopt children to same-sex couples amounts to violating a civil right. The Catholic Church in MA was essentially presented with this ultimatum: adopt to same-sex couples or have your license to operate in this state revoked.
Now you are free to disagree with the Catholic position on the nature of the family. But does being a “secular society” mean forcing religions to heed an alternative definition of the family? How is that making room for religion in the public square? Your claim that same-sex laws don’t harm anyone’s right to worship as they please is simply naive. The question is not just whether a church presides over same-sex marriages. Churches are surrounded on all sides by the state. Licenses for charity work, tax exempt status, discrimination rulings on hirings, etc etc. This is not about whether the state will make the Catholic Church have a rite of same-sex marriage. This is not the only thing Churches do. As a matter of fact, the same-sex marriage law has prevented the Catholic Church from running herself and her charities in the way she sees fit. So let’s stop pretending that there is not a profound reshaping of the church-state relationship underway, or that it is “ridiculous” to see same-sex marriage laws as substantial threats to religious liberty.
Here is a very useful article to read.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
Written by Maggie Gallagher (one of the sharpest American public intellectuals I can think of) who is against gay marriage, but I think she gives a pretty fair and comprehensive overview of the looming legal landscape. She remarks that it is those legal scholars who support gay marriage – not wacko religious conservatives – who think that there are serious looming legal pressures on religious organizations. It is frankly not hard to foresee a time when the Catholic Church is treated by the state like the KKK – a fundamentally bigoted organization which is focused on discriminating against others. Perhaps you don’t think that is a bad comparison. To my mind it is simply absurd.
Perhaps you’ve read about the recent law under consideration in Britain that would make a celibate priesthood illegal? It would make the requirement that priests be male and celibate a violation of anti-discriminatory hiring practices. The effect would be to make – again – Catholicism illegal in the UK.
FOCA (which concerns abortion and not gay marriage) would, as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have recently said, force them to consider shutting down all Catholic hospitals that have OBGYN services in the United States. This because FOCA would basically eliminate freedom-of-conscience laws and require those hospitals that get Medicare or Medicaid moneys to perform abortions. Whether you agree with it or not, it sounds like the US Catholic Bishops would sooner close their hospital doors than be forced to kill innocents. This is a war on religious freedom. I don’t think that is overstating the matter, though I am sure you will consider me reactionary.
Your argument seems to be based around the presumption that arbitrarily withholding civil-rights to a specific group is perfectly acceptable. All of your arguments fall apart if you lose that base. Imagine a nation where you aren’t allowed any of the legal benefits of marriage due to your Catholicism (I’m assuming that you’re Catholic). It doesn’t make sense because it is an arbitrary withholding of civil-rights. This is the exact same situation that the LGBT community is in. Rights are being arbitrarily withheld.
Furthermore, arguing to further withhold civil-rights because of the legal ramifications it may have on an institution is purely apathetic. Policies will need to be adjusted but civil-rights and equality are clearly more important.
“the Lord segregated the Negro” and asked, “who is man to change that segregation?”
Um, doesn’t Mormonism teach that god is a man? If so, then this is paradoxical. But whatever; paradoxes and contradictions are par for the course when discussing Mormonism.
It teaches that man may become a god, not that man is God.
I distinctly remember my German teacher in 8th or 9th grade having MLK day written on the calendar. I remember some of us kids making a “joke” that it was actually Milk day (because MLK is kinda like Milk). This was in 1996 or 1997. Huh. I actually don’t have that much recollection of the naming of the holiday… I’ll have to ask my older siblings or my Mom… interesting.
good post jon.