As an African-American and a Republican (as was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), I think it is important to clarify the meaning of the phrases “civil discourse” and “civil disobedience.” In the height of the civil rights movement, Dr. King and his followers adapted the strategy of civil disobedience used effectively by Gandhi in India. People from across the country (white and black) came together to speak out about racial inequity, congregated under threat and use of physical force, and marched in large numbers in the Deep South and on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. These actions are closely related to the people who have become active in the Tea Party movement over the last two years.
The horrific action of a single person last week in Tucson has prompted people on one side of the political spectrum to disavow the right of political speech of their political opponents in the name of “civil discourse.” In my view, civil discourse is nothing more than subjective political censorship. Imagine what would have happened if Dr. King was jailed to stop him from speaking because of the actions of black militants on the mid-1960s. If that had occurred, our country would be drastically different from what it is today.
Our Republic is only as strong as the people who are allowed to express themselves in civil disobedience against their government. Our Founding Fathers knew this truth. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood and exercised this right of individual freedom for the benefit of his people. In 2011, we should make sure that “civil discourse” does not take away our rights to speak out against our government.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: MLK, Jr., Civil Discourse and the Tea Party movement – National Elections 2010 | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/elections-2010-in-national/mlk-jr-civil-discourse-and-the-tea-party-movement#ixzz1BJIKwf3h
Faculty, Department of Political Science, Towson University. Graduate from Liberty University Seminary.