Some unfortunate people (Neo-Conservatives, Republicans, etc) have mistakenly decided to use this day to venerate the Secular Saint Martin Luther King, Jr., rather than the honourable (though admittedly not perfect) Robert E. Lee. They choose to deify a man and “baptise” him into their own movement while disparaging the historical hero of the South. But, like the Theistic evolution narrative, if you accept the basic tenant (in this case “MLK was a good man”), then you toss the ball to their court. Evidence abounds that he was a Communist sympathiser, if not a Communist himself. For the evidence presented, we show that MLK was no conservative. Here is a quote from the man on the defeat of Barry Goldwater:
The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path. (emphasis added)
We must recognize that the problems of neither racial nor economic justice can be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.
Sadly, even our Churches (even Catholic Churches) seem intent on contributing to the myth of the great, late, MLK. If not for political reasons alone, but especially for religious reasons the man should be shunned. A key deficiency of most progressivists, King also denied key tenants of the Christian Faith. Here are his words on the development of Christian doctrine, born not of the Supernatural by Divine Revelation, but by natural means out of the consciousness of the early Christians:
Doctrines and creeds do not spring forth uncaused like Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but they grow out of the historical settings and the psychological moods of the individuals that set them forth. All ideas, however profound or however naive, are produced by conditions and experiences that grow from the producers’ environment.
Compare these to the words of Saint Pope Pius X, hammer of modernists and possibly the greatest Pontiff of the 20th Century, in his “Oath Against Modernism” (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. (emphasis added)
King continues with his heresy:
In this paper we shall discuss the experiences of early Christians which lead to three rather orthodox doctrines–the divine sonship of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection…But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.
On the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother:
The second doctrine in our discussion posits the virgin birth. This doctrine gives the modern scientific mind much more trouble than the first, for it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father. First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker.
On the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour, the Christ:
From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?
In all three points, MLK espouses the position that the early Christians’ “inner experiences” and “environment” led to the deification of Christ, who was not born of a Virgin, was likely not fully God, and was not resurrected from the dead. He leaves a hollow shell that is not Christian. Did the fool really think he could cast aspersions on matters that the great minds before him had already thought upon, ideas that were born out of events and reality rather than inner consciousness?
Bl. Pius IX, the “Southerner’s Pope,” wrote the great “Syllabus of Errors,” that the following notions are condemned as anti-Christian:
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.
9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.
So should we celebrate MLK Day? No way.