He was arrested more than once for resisting the government. His view on just and unjust laws was that an unjust law did not harmonize with the moral law- it just was not right. Martin Luther King Jr. did not want to "evade or defy the law as a rabid segregationist would", but he did not want to stand there and let the government do him and other African Americans wrong; therefore, he broke only the unjust laws, and he did so openly. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were two men fighting against unfair laws peacefully. Peacefully is the key word.
Martin Luther King, one of the most well known civil rights leaders in America, believed that some laws during his lifetime were unjust in nature and were acceptable to ignore based on ones conscience. Henry David Thoreau also believed that unjust laws were to be resisted or ignored. While Thoreau was the first American to define and use civil disobedience as a means of protest, King expanded upon it in his letter from Birmingham jail, implementing nonviolence and practical application into the traditional American protest. Henry David Thoreau believed that, “That government is best, which governs least.” Also, while Thoreau had wished for no government, he acknowledged the fact that it was logically impossible and that the government only exists because the people allow it to exist; Thoreau states, “The government does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west.
Children are children, regardless of race, and King knew that the mistreatment of these children would expose the violence that had been ever-present in Birmingham. This, however, was not a popular suggestion among black parents and family members. They scolded King for being so inconsiderate, but they knew that there was really no other way that could be nearly effective. Nevertheless, one day in May of 1963, over one thousand black youths did not attend school. Instead, the students gathered together and prepared to demonstrate.
I don’t believe he was ever violent with his war protests. The only thing in my opinion that could have been argued that John Lennon was endangering was the image of the government which made them feel threatened. I feel that John Lennon did a very good job of how he handled his opposition and I don’t believe he could have gone about it another way while staying peaceful. In my opinion I think the government handled the John Lennon situation very poorly, John only demonstrated peaceful protest, and he never harmed anyone. The government tried to have John Lennon deported on a charge that they dug up from his past in his country.
Together, these suggest that Wolsey didn’t let anything get in the way of his quest to achieve justice for all, even if it gained him powerful enemies and went against the tradition of the time. Although source three does agree that, in his unconventional way, “he [Wolsey] punished the rich”, it disagrees with sources one and two in relation to the question because it claims
He then moves to the contrast of acquiesce; violence. King begins by acknowledging that nations throughout history have used violence to win their freedom, “[b]ut in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace” (4-4). Although King does not supply scientific or factual sources, he appeals to the reader’s pathos to show that achieving justice through violence and hatred is both ineffective and immoral. King also provides the biblical reference of
Unity or independence was very important to the colonists before the Revolutionary War because they didn’t have the rights we do today. Colonists couldn’t trade with the world, weren’t protected of their rights, imposed taxes, and a lot more. The king of the colonies had treated them with a lot of disrespect. He had not given them any freedom whatsoever, and had just made them follow his unjust rules and law. Although they knew the consequences or punishments for doing so, the colonists had found ways to smuggle.
Slavery and Racism in Early American History Freedom is flawed. Truthfully, total freedom is impossible to achieve in this world, since the chains that bind humans disable us from truly living freely. With the constant stresses of simply living or being confined to the laws of the land, our freedom is suppressed. Since every human being falls under being constrained, however, we should all share the burden equally. In past history, enslavement of another was usually the result of an unpaid debt, the spoils of a victorious war, or the consequences of a crime.
Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement. Oppression is not something that sits well with any type of person that is under the oppression. To resist the oppression, one must carefully chose those laws that they fill are unjust and oppresses them, and once they are chosen then one can make a stand against the oppression. Oppression is unjust law that limits the power of the people that are oppressed into feeling powerless. The United States fought of the oppression over the colonies in the late 1700’s by first peacefully protesting the unjust taxes waged against them.
The people are forced to be normal without any regards of free will or morality. The idea of equality and a conflict-free society is just on the surface because the government uses drastic measurements to make sure no one opposes them. However, no matter how much they try, it is impossible to reach perfect equality in a place where everyone is born different. In “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., syntax and irony are used to portray the deeper meaning of the dangers of trying to achieve equality. Perfection is just an illusion when in reality the corruptness and unfairness is just lying underneath all the lies told by the government.