I was totally embarrassed as many of the speakers chose what should have been a time to reflect on Mrs. King, to instead make it a time for them to “speak out” on their political beliefs! I was disgusted with Carter, outraged with Lowry and so ashamed when “we” made a thunder of applause for Clinton. Don’t get me wrong we all should be forgiven, but here is someone that is KNOWN for having extra marital sex IN THE WHITE HOUSE ( I’m sure there were many more) but he indeed made many wrong choices and sure we are to forgive him, but does he really deserve that much applause??? Come on now! To top it all off it was a funeral for Martin Luther King’s widow! Thank God for Bernice, she brought it all back to what it was all about, to bring some dignity back to the event.

President Carter and Dr.Joseph Lowery had every right to speak their minds. You(republicans) are just angry because Bush was exposed and doesn’t know what to do in a “non pre-screened” crowd. This what happens when you let bush leave his “safe” surroundings…

“President Carter and Dr.Joseph Lowery had every right to speak their minds”

In response to this comment:

Of course we all have a right to speak our minds, but true maturity is knowing WHEN to speak your mind. And common sense will tell you that you don’t give a speech on current events that you KNOW are opposing, sensitive issues at the funeral of such a person…or any person for that reason. That’s like you getting up at the funeral of a loved one and instead of reflecting on your loved one, you choose that time to talk about how your cousin BOO BOO got drunk and cussed everybody out at the last family reunion, and he’s wrong and he always does that and he needs to be stopped…”

Now grantit, current issues are a lot more serious than that, but the scenario is just as outrageous.

Every Republican hates and/or disagrees with everything my “Mother” stood for.

Lie #1 (the “mother” thing scares me a little)

When Vice Pres. Cheney dies (if he ever does… I hear he’s a vampire and drinks the blood of the young…)

Now you are using the racist language that is used agains Jews.

So far you have offered nothing here but mind-numbing rehtoric and lies….and still will avoid addressing any of the FACTS that I have raised in this post.

There is nothing wrong with you having an admiration for the Clintons, Carter, and Lowery. But if you cannot DIRECTLY ADDRESS the factual points that I raised first, please don’t waste your time here.

I am not interested in getting into an e-shouting match with someone who displays the lack of ability to stay on point.

Please re-read the post and challenge me on anything that I said you think is non-factual. Until then, peace!

I agree with DS, in that it showed no class. But I also thought it made Blacks look simple minded in the fact that we cannot seperate politics from everyday real life.

Besides, any person who is halfway literate can pull up on the internet the budgets from 1996 and 2005, and see Bush has spent more on social entitlement programs that Clinton, dispelling Lowry’s rhyme. And for Carter, on record as the most unaccomplished President of this century, to referrence the wiretap issue as it relates to King, without naming the source of the wiretaps (RFK and Hoover)is par for the course for him.

Most of the Black people in attendance are of the mind that embarrasing Bush is the equivilent to telling off whitey. But af

Maybe Bush was exposed as the comment by ‘they’re everyright’ said (though I’d like to see a demonstration of any truth in the exposing of Mr. Bush), however I think it very disrespectful to Coretta Scott King, her husband, their memory and their work to have taken her funeral and turned it into a political event.

Folks are surprised that activists are going to act like activists at a funeral of an activist. Many people forget that Mrs. King was an activist in the true sense of the word, but just like many folks only focus on Dr. King’s I have a dream speech and ignore his loyality to gay aide Baynard Rustin and his speeches against the war, folks want to forget that Coretta strongly opposed the war in Iraq, supported Affirmative Action and Gay Rights and was embarassed by Bernice and Rev. Long’s march on the King Center, which was Mrs. King’s pride and joy. Both should have taken the funeral as an opportunity to apologize to Mrs. King. Also Mrs. King, a victim of illegal wiretaping, was promised that the US would not engage in the practice again. The people at the funeral knew Mrs. King, so they had every right to give the reflections of Mrs. King’s life and reflect on her legacy. One question…why was the service held way out in the suburbs at Rev. Long’s megachurch rather than at the historic Ebernizer Baptist Church, across the street from the King Center and Martin’s tomb, with a memorial service the day before the funeral held at the Georgia Dome or Turner Field, which would have been as packed as Rev. Long’s church. I think what happened was that Bernice and the rest of the children were not in agreement regarding the service so a compromise was made; the service would be held at Bernice’s church and the rest of the children would be in charge of inviting the speakers. If you notice, certain folks; Jesse, Sharpton, Minister Farrakhan, weren’t allowed to speak; conversely, the family, Bernice excepted, knew exactly what the speakers were going to say and had no problem with it; otherwise they would have been on the no speak list with Jesse and Al. Finally the point made, I believe, by Clinton, that Black folks with a little bit of money need to provide financial support to Black insitutions like the King Center was right on target. African Americans have no problem spending big bucks for Grammy, Super Bowl, All Star Game and Congressional Black Caucus parties, but we can’t find the money to support the King Center, the Oakland Ballet, the Dance Theater of Harlem or the Harlem Boys Chior. I’m more embarassed that these important Black insitutions have shut down because of lack of Black support than anything that happened at Mrs. King’s funeral.

Nice parting shot Harryo.

I concur. We must do more of the right thing. We are a nation within a nation. Until we realize that we aren’t entitled to anything other than Justice in the courts, Freedom within the World and Equal treatment with the best of the best. We will linger in the past…

(Smile) Bless America…

Folks are surprised that activists are going to act like activists at a funeral of an activist.

There were no “activists” speaking at the funeral, only representatives of government and clergy.

If I disagree with someone at a funeral, out of respect I do not bring in my “stuff” in a service that is designed for someone else. Mrs. King may have disagreed with Bush, but she was one of the few negroes that stood side by side with him when Bush laid a wreath on her husband’s tomb. Seems to me she herself knew that there was a time and place for everything.

why was the service held way out in the suburbs at Rev. Long’s megachurch rather than at the historic Ebernizer Baptist Church, across the street from the King Center and Martin’s tomb, with a memorial service the day before the funeral held at the Georgia Dome or Turner Field, which would have been as packed as Rev. Long’s church.

New Birth is the largest church in the area that is closest to the city of Atlanta (about 15 miles. Even the new Ebenezer church could not house all of those people.

As far as your last point harryo, you will not get any argument out of me on that.

larapierwit,

You who attempts to PRESUME that in anyway, the wiretapping of the KINGS was not outrageous…

Where did I say this?

I didn’t!

The wiretapping of the King’s was wrong, but Carter’s attempt to tie that event to the wiretapping of those working with Al qaeda was straight-up inaccurate.

I tried to see if you mentioned anywhere in your comments anything about BOTH CARTER AND CLINTON’s “unchecked” wiretapping…

…apparently you want to continue to repeat the party reponse by not mentioning those other important facts.

Instead of regurgetating the typical Liberal response to the wiretapping issue, take the time to look at all the issues AND WAIT for the results of the current wiretapping hearings before you assume anything.

As far as your other comment goes regarding Carter, this is what he said:

===

Mr Carter also referred to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as evidence that the struggle for civil rights was not complete. “We only have to recall the colour of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi who are most devastated by Katrina to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans,” he said.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9cf2b1e8-9834-11da-816b-0000779e2340.html

===

When he talked about Katrina, nothing here was mentioned about them being poor.

Don’t insert what isn’t there.

Here are some details of who was affected by Katrina

Here is a link to the actual stats of those who died as a result of Katrina:

Katrina Killed Across Class Lines

The well-to-do died along with the poor, an analysis of data shows. The findings counter common beliefs that disadvantaged blacks bore the brunt.

I still have yet to see ANY of some of the commenters here confront points that I raised in the post like how much more money Bush has pumped into entitlement programs than Clinton or Carter DURING WARTIME. There were other points, but let’s just start with that one.

No, Duane..what you see here is an individual focused on the topic. I am not going on tangents about what other Presidents did.

I am addressing the remarks Carter made at the funeral and their significance both historically and as regards to Carter, himself, having signed the legislation.

then address the issue of how he can condem a policy that he himself didn’t abide by?

Also address the relationship between the wiretapping of the Kings and wiretapping of suspected terrorists?

I am focusing on the issues you raised in that commentary and if you were not being partisan, perhaps you could as well? 

And I guess somehow I am to assume that you are looking at things straight down the middle…

I just checked my queue and didn’t see anything there. I’ll keep checking

Wow, I cannot believe this..each time I post that original response to you it does not post..but the short one does…hmmm…

I will try one last time…

larapierwit,

Com’on now! Are we going to play this game where everytime I bring up some facts you shoot them down on the grounds that you feel they are “misleading” without factually disputing these points that I have raised?

O yes, and regarding..those stats on fatalities during Katrina..they are meaningless both racially and contextually as Carter was not addressing fatalities from Katrina.

He addressed poverty and equal opportunity as it relates to color. Katrina was his example of that.

That was the context of his remarks…not how many died.

To me it is self-evident, simply based on those harrowing THREE days when no American recieved help in New Orleans that the example Carter used was appropriate.

But then you have to listen to what he said in its entirety and not rely on excerpts to know that.

You are correct you did not say that.

However, you did fail to address the significance of what Carter was saying while ‘fuming’ about how inappropriate it was for him to ‘swipe’ at the President, as if addressing the violation of the King’s civil liberties somehow paled in comparison to their rights being violated. After all, THAT was the point.

I think it is absurd that you choose to ‘fume’ about what you perceive to be a breach of ‘manners/protocol’, when the issue was the KINGS Civil RIGHTS as American CITIZENS.

Furthermore, Carter did not once bring up Al-Q…..you are!

Carter was talking about an ABUSE of POWER and the Kings are a perfect example of WARRANTLESS domestic WIRETAPPING which is a clear violation of the FISA legislation he signed. What could be more appropriate than to REMIND Americans that the Kings were wiretapped under the auspices of being ‘agitators and communists’ and today our government is attempting to label people as ‘terrorists and enemy of the state’ to justify WARRANTLESS domestic wiretapping?

And as far as inaccuracy goes..what is clear to most people is that when it comes to national security and wiretapping Al-Q, Americans agree THAT is in our best interests. However, when it comes to WARRANTLESS DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING of American citizens..that is NOT acceptable and in clear violation of the law

When it comes to facts, I address them in a non-partisan way, since FACTS are neither liberal or conservative. Mayhap, it is you who filters information in that way, but not I.

what the hey…I try to chop up the remarks and now they say when I try to post the balance of them..theya re duplicated/!!! WTF is this system doing.

It is not a duplicate since the remarks never posted to BEGIN with

geez…

Furthermore, Carter did not once bring up Al-Q…..you are!

For him to mention that specifically KNOWING FULL WELL that wiretapping was the least of the King’s worries was a political swipe at Bush. THEREFORE, he is drawing a line between wiretapping that took place under a different administration about 40 plus years ago under different circumstances and Al-Qaeda. Again I ask “What is the relation?”

Carter was talking about an ABUSE of POWER and the Kings are a perfect example of WARRANTLESS domestic WIRETAPPING which is a clear violation of the FISA legislation he signed. What could be more appropriate than to REMIND Americans that the Kings were wiretapped under the auspices of being ‘agitators and communists’ and today our government is attempting to label people as ‘terrorists and enemy of the state’ to justify WARRANTLESS domestic wiretapping?

Then why did he not mention the fact that he himself went over the same FISA court????

When it comes to facts, I address them in a non-partisan way, since FACTS are neither liberal or conservative. Mayhap, it is you who filters information in that way, but not I.

THEN WHY DO YOU DISMISS ANY FACTS THAT I BRING US AS SPECULATIVE?

I have pointed to you where you could find “the numbers” behind my argument–no acknowledgment from you of actually reading them

I have pointed out the fact that Carter himself perfomed domestic survellance without “permission”–no acknowledgement from you.

I have pointed out the fact that until Bush is found by the current inquiry that he is in fact guilty of breaking the law, assuming that he did is inaccurate–yet you still come to the conclusion that he did “step over boundaries”

I mentioned the fact that Bush has spent more money on entitlement programs that Clinton or Carter (something I do not agree with)–yet for some reason you still are arriving at this conclusion that Bush is perpetuating a climate of inequality

What more can I do?

Listen, I’m not trying to get you to see the world the way I see it. I’m just trying to get you to acknowledge the facts that I have laid out on the table for you–that’s it.

So why continue with this conversation?

The quotes were placed there because activist is a very broad term. For example, I would consider Jesse Jackson as an activist even though he is a liscened rev. But that is my opinion. If I was wrong here, I’ll take that.

Harryo

You mentioned about the funeral being held in Lithonia, at Bishop Eddie Longs church vs. in Atlanta at Ebenezer.

You are aware that Long is one of the ministers who receives Faith Based Initiative money from this administration, no?

Are you also aware that Long was invited to the White House to visit with Bush and that Sharpton and Jesse were not which may explain as well why they were not part of the program.

THEN WHY DO YOU DISMISS ANY FACTS THAT I BRING US AS SPECULATIVE?

Without going back to read the post, I was not dismissing your facts as speculative. RATHER, I meant that I would not speculate regarding what Carter and Clinton did as that was not the focus of your commentary nor was it the gist of what Carter’s remarks were, therefore I considered it to be a tangent and off topic.

I have pointed to you where you could find “the numbers” behind my argument–no acknowledgment from you of actually reading them

I said from jump that this point was without merit. No need to look at any numbers that do not adjust for inflation between the Carter and Clinton years and the value of todays dollars.

More importantly, anyone who reads about the overall budget KNOWS that 70% of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 got t the top 20% of taxpayers with the highest incomes and that more than 25% of the benefits go to the top ONE percent of incomes.

Now, if 97% of the taxcut benefits go to the 3.7% of households earning over 200K and virtually noe of the tax cuts goe to families earning under 100K.

Then it is safe to say that the priority of this Administration is NOT the poor WITHOUT even discussing the CURRENT cuts in entitlement programs.

So, again the point you are raising here lacks merit.

I have pointed out the fact that until Bush is found by the current inquiry that he is in fact guilty of breaking the law, assuming that he did is inaccurate–yet you still come to the conclusion that he did “step over boundaries”

I am not ASSUMING and I am being ACCURATE..the FISA statue clearly states that anyone who wiretapps without getting a warrant under the express provisions provided in the statue is in VIOLATION of the LAW and has committed a FELONY.

Bush has already ACKNOWLEDGED that he has NOT sought warrants despite being able to wiretap for up to 72 hours without a warrant he has not deigned to get a warrant becasue he considers it is express EXECUTIVE POWER and that is a total fabrication created by YOO and GONZALES his legal counsel on this issue.

Now you can wait, if you want to learn that he has violated the law. I know he has by virtue of reading the statue.

The question is will the CONGRESS hold him accountable and prosecute him..not WHETHER he has violated the law.

He does not even need to be impeached..he simply needs to be arrested and charged.

I mentioned the fact that Bush has spent more money on entitlement programs that Clinton or Carter (something I do not agree with)–yet for some reason you still are arriving at this conclusion that Bush is perpetuating a climate of inequality

What more can I do?

Read this link:

http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm

Listen, I’m not trying to get you to see the world the way I see it. I’m just trying to get you to acknowledge the facts that I have laid out on the table for you–that’s it

I acknowledge facts just not your conclusions

Duane wrote: “anti-poverty spending has surged 39% under President Bush to a record 16% of all federal spending” while “entitlement spending is projected to nearly double over the next decade.” Spending on education “has soared 137 percent between 2001 and 2006.” Page 142 of the OMB’s budget document (PDF) projects that Medicare spending will skyrocket from $337,885 billion in 2006 to $488,917 billion in 2011, a 77 percent nominal hike in the annual level totalling $755 billion over five years — hardly a “$36 billion cut.”

JL: How much was spent on these programs before Bush came along?

How much did Bush cut from these programs when he assumed office?

Hence, does the increases put the programs back where they were pre-Bush” is the question that needs to be answered.

Jeeze John,

Follow the dag on links in the original post puhleeeze!

If he has in fact broken the law, why are Democrats backing off of impeachment? Answer: Because they know that the FISA law was written pre-9-11 and either needs to be updated or rid of all together.

Well Duane, even you should be able to answer this, given that you do find it productive to frame issues in a right/left context.

There are not enough democrats in congress to form a majority to DO anything about what BUSH has done and like I said it is unequivocal..he BROKE the LAW and it has NOTHING to do with this pre-9/11 ROVIAN term that is being spewed about.

All of this points to my point of it being non-productive to frame issues from a right/left perspective vs. what is RIGHT and LEGAL.

Were the CONGRESS not so PARTISAN ..they would KICK Bush out of office because he is grossly INCOMETENT by ANY measure of reasonable ppl.

But you see folks are too busy being PARTISAN to do what is best for the country

instead they cling to partisanship and let principles and values go to hell in a hand basket.

This is coming from the same person who will not acknowledge any of the facts I have brought up all of this time WITHOUT FACTUALLY DISPUTING THEM

Hmmm, you still do not get it. I have not failed to acknowledge your facts I simply am not allowing you to frame the argument in the context of left or right..liberal or conservative.

The facts you have raised are not on target. You want to talk about spending on anti-poverty programs when Lowery clearly stated that the administration is spending billions on the war but cutting anti-poverty programs. A FACT, reasonable ppl can agree on. His remarks were a comparative statement about the BUDGET PRIORITY’s not former presidents anti-poverty spending!!!.

Except you want to make it about what this President spent vs. that President and that is NOT what Lowery said or meant.

You simply are trying to frame the argument that way. Which is why I gave you the link that goes to the PRIORITIES of the Bush budget, his spending and tax cuts. THAT is the issue Lowery raised.

So far you have not addressed that ..instead you are going on and on about conservative vs. liberal and who spent more which is NOT the point Lowery made.

and automatically concluding that they are missleading and irreleavant.

It is not about being misleading or irrelevant so much as your comments do not focus on the ISSUE the speakers raised. I have not reached a conclusion other than you are off on tangents IGNORING the SUBSTANCE of what was stated so you can conflate everything into some PARTISAN issue.

Dare I ask you to show me where I was being “partisan”?

See above..you are not addressing content or substance you are framing everything from a partisan perspective..and find it shocking that I consider that meaningless..but then that is how a partisan mind thinks.

And I showed you what THIS president has spent and you dismissed it as misleading again without factually proving otherwise.

NO. I did not dismiss it as misleading I said it was a TANGENT. Surely, you understand the difference? I am refusing to address an issue you are raising that does not address the SUBSTANCE of the ISSUE that you CLAIM to be remarking about. I did not say it was not factual.

Simply stating a fact that is off-topic merely creates another separate issue. If you are criticizing a person’s statements, your facts should address the issue they raised. You are not doing that. Stay focused and discuss the merits of what was SAID not whole other tangent is all I am saying.

Lowery did not talk about what this President spent vs. another President. YOU ARE. That you are speaking FACTUALLY does not alter the FACT that you are on a TANGENT and failing to address the ISSUE Lowery DID raise which was the budget PRIORTIES and not what one President spent vs. another. The only thing misleading here is you, misleading yourself as to what the ISSUE was that was raised by Lowery.

Did you listen to what Lowery said? He did not compare this President to any other. Lowery simply compared Dubya’s SPENDING PRIORTIES based on HIS budget. No other Presidents budget was mentioned.

The facts you have raised are not on target.

And you still fail to prove it FACTUALLY!

I have proved that you are off target by continually stating what the ISSUE and SUBSTANCE of the remarks are. You are failing to understand that.

Instead you use the tired accusation of me being “partisan” while you pick and choose the facts you want to accept.

Do you deny that you are partisan? How else do you account for the Heritage Foundation remarks about what this Presidents spending was vs. another?

Lowery CERTAINLY did not address what Bushes spending was vs. Clinton or CARTER.

So why are YOU?

I am not picking and choosing the facts to respond to. I am merely focusing you on what the SUBSTANCE of the comments were by Lowery and Carter.

Lowery did not bring up former presidents budgets and Carter did not bring up FISA nor AL-Q…

so the question is WHY are you??

Stick to the FACTS about the ISSUES raised by Lowery and Carter and then we can have a discussion.

Your attempts to make this into a partisan conversation on tangents that were NOT ADDRESSED are are FUTILE, rather than not factual.

In short, bring on the FACTS but FACTS ON TOPIC.

“LOWERY: We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there were weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound, for war billions more, but no more for the poor.”

I challenged his statement by providing for you what Bush actually did spend. I brought up past presidents only to better put it in context.

Yes, you did challenge this statement by providing what Bush spend RELATIVE to other Presidents.

That however does not put Lowery’s remark ” better in context’ RATHER it takes it OUT of CONTEXT and makes an entirely separate and whole OTHER issue.

You can only put Lowery’s remarks in context and/or “challenge” them by looking SOLELY at Bush’s budget ALONE and how he has PRIORITIZED spending in HIS budget.

Not what others did.

Lowery only commented on BUSHES spending priorities no one elses.

Which is why I gave you the link.

See, the GOP talking points do not help you here. You must THINK for yourself and not just lap up the data spewed from the right wing HERITAGE foundation think tank.

They want you to let their ‘think tank’ THINK for you. They want to misconstrue what Lowery said and they want you to beleive this has something to do with Carter and CLinton..and it DOESN’t!!

This is all about BUSHES budget and how he has priortized spending..NOT what other Presidents spent.

So if you have some facts which REFUTE Lowery based on BUSHES budget SOLELY..then you will be ON TOPIC..and creating a FACTUAL discussion we can engage in.

Alright.

Would you believe that I have yet to put away our Christmas tree?

Shameful!

I am doing that right now, so I have to break off for real this time.

Take care!

PS: Are you in Colorado? Just thought I’d ask.

No, I am East of the Rockies.

In the “Land of a thousand lakes.”

Chat with you another day.

Have a great evening.

I gotta go too.

whatever was said at this great person’s funeral…mere words could not criticize george bush or his administration enough…with any luck this occasion left an indelible mark on president bush’s microscopic psyche!

See Attached article….

The controversy surrounding the funeral of Coretta Scott King is a fitting coda to the final chapter of her story. After all, her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., spent his life generating controversy, something we conveniently forget when we commemorate a sepia-toned and softly lighted version of their lives.

Since the funeral, conservative commentators have been fueling the fires of partisan outrage over remarks made by former President Jimmy Carter — who, in a pointed allusion to modern-day government eavesdropping, noted that Dr. King was a victim of FBI surveillance — and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, whose bad verse made valid points about an unjustified war and neglect of the poor. In fact, those professing outrage at Carter and Lowery are using the same tactics of feigned anger that Muslim imams and autocrats are using to gin up fury over images of the prophet Muhammad, and they do so with equally slim justification.

It’s hard to understand what Carter and Lowery did to deserve such attacks. Criticizing President Bush in his presence? He is the president of the world’s leading democracy, not the emperor of Rome. Americans have a constitutional right to criticize their elected representatives without fear of imprisonment or death.

For his part, the president was cordial, even gracious, playfully hugging Lowery later on. He acted like a man who understood his role as the leader of a politically diverse nation. (Bush’s aides ought to allow him out of the protective bubble of partisan adoration more often; it serves him well to hear from people who disagree with his policies.)

But isn’t it inappropriate to inject politics at a funeral? King didn’t think so. Delivering the eulogy at the September 1963 funeral of four little girls killed when their Birmingham church was firebombed, the civil rights leader was blatantly political, using the occasion to spread blame well beyond the small circle of white supremacists who planted the explosives.

“They are …. martyred heroines,” King said. “They have something to say to every minister of the Gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.

“They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of southern Dixiecrats and the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing northern Republicans. They have something to say to every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.”

King understood only too well that his cause would offend the powerful, annoy the comfortable and frustrate moderates who believed he was moving too fast, pushing too hard, provoking too much controversy.

Responding to critics in “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” King wrote: “I must confess I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’ I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” In other words, he knew that he would have to force Americans out of their comfort zone, which had accommodated segregation.

King also stirred enormous controversy when he decided to denounce the war in Vietnam. According to Taylor Branch, who recently published his latest chronicle of that era, “At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68,” King agonized over his decision to oppose the war. He not only understood the dangers of communism; he knew his opposition to the war could cost the civil rights movement its most powerful ally, Lyndon Johnson. Some respected civil rights leaders urged him to keep his mouth shut.

But his conscience wouldn’t let him. In a pivotal speech at New York’s Riverside Church in April 1967, King said: “I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart. … I knew I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”

If you’ve never heard those words before, it’s no surprise. At the time, the speech was roundly denounced by enemies and allies alike; annual celebrations of King’s life rarely recall it. But King stood by his opposition to the war despite controversy and broken alliances. It hardly seems likely, then, that he or his widow would be troubled by a bit of pointed rhetoric at her funeral.

——————————————————————————–

Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.

VB wrote “Something else should have been buried…” It did not say NEEDED to be buried as you said.”

JL: In fact, “should have” is worse than “needed.”

John L.

John,

This conversation is over… nice talking to you though.