King's Letter From Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 KJV).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 57 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

This week we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

As we celebrate this week, culminating with the federal holiday on Monday, January 20, we have much for which to be thankful, much has been accomplished in race relations in America. Let us stop looking to others and ask, what more can I do to help?

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: His Letter from Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 44 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

Today we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

This year’s celebrations coincide with the ending of two terms of service by the first black president of the United States – what a tribute to Dr. King.

I Intend to Vote!

Upon becoming a citizen of the United States, I knew I would earn the right to vote - that right I cherish. Especially now, considering that some 70% of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. My vote might just make the difference to stem this downward trend.

Agreed, the political climate is toxic. However, that toxicity is because of the personalities in the presidential race and not because of the issues at stake. To ignore the issues and focus almost exclusively on leadership traits is a distraction. From a recent survey, the American Psychological Association concluded that more than 50% of American adults view the 2016 election cycle as “a very or somewhat” significant source of stress.

Interestingly, the stress is not only among Americans. Stress and curiosity go beyond foreign policy and security. American policies on trade, immigration, the environment and even health care often carry implications for other nations.

I can make a difference and I intend to do so on Tuesday, November 8. However, as I prayerfully prepare myself to vote, I know that I cannot limit my thinking to the two presidential candidates. As far as I am concerned, both candidates lack the moral authority to lead America. To date, the variety of salacious disclosures will make it very difficult for either candidate to lead with integrity.

However, as I prepare to vote, I will be forced to vote for the candidate who best represents the positions which are important to me. I will vote for the candidate who supports the appointment of justices and judges who respect constitutional limits and the authority of states.

I am aware that the next president may select as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. These justices will decide on cultural issues that will affect me, my children and my grandchildren. Both presidential candidates have indicated the kind of persons they would like to serve on the Supreme Court – there is a stark ideological difference. In addition, the next president will appoint district and appellate judges throughout the nation.

As a person of color, I am very concerned that on average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. Did you know that, annually, abortion among black Americans causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Regardless of color, every life is sacred, and I will be voting for a presidential candidate that is sensitive to this concern.
My faith defines me and the Bill of Rights protects my right to practice my faith. I want to live according to the dictates of my conscience. I have no problem living in a religiously diverse culture. I want to be sure that all faith-based institutions are protected from government discrimination. Whichever presidential candidate protects these rights will get my vote.

The institution of marriage, defined as a union between a man and a woman, has served every culture for millennia. Both social scientists and theologians will agree that “the institution of marriage is the relationship that best provides for the most favorable exercise of human sexuality, the overall well-being of adults, and the proper socialization of children.” Agreed, other familial relationships meet similar needs. However, lifelong, monogamous marriage is the best option.

If the above is true, then why demonize this option? Researcher Glen Stanton is correct, “Marriage has no close rival. It stands independently above any other option: singleness, cohabitation, divorce and remarriage.” I am eager to vote for a candidate who shares my passion.

When my family and I came to this country 25 years ago, our privileges were limited by our overseas student status. I was determined to live within the immigration limits placed on us. I had a moral obligation to model to my children that we were a law-abiding family. In addition, I had a biblical obligation to display consistency in all areas of my life. We were deprived of luxuries, but maintained our integrity.

I want other immigrants to have a similar appreciation for the laws of the land. It was good to hear the officer say at my citizenship interview, “We are sorry it took so long, but welcome to America.” I plan to vote for a presidential candidate who respects the process of law and order when it comes to immigration. Everyone wins when we play clean. You now know why I intend to vote on November 8.

White Privilege

When we migrated to America twenty-five years ago, we were often told that we were not seen as being black. We understood then, that that was a statement of acceptance. Acceptance by others who determined that our conduct was not a threat to their way of living.

I believe those who affirmed us were genuine. They were unconscious of assuming and displaying a posture of privilege. On one occasion, I was visiting a woman who was dying in hospital. During that visit, my presence was questioned by a white nurse. The white husband of the dying woman sensed the racist tone in the nurse’s question. Although he was not being addressed, the husband answered – “He is our pastor.” With that, the nurse left the room.

In coming to my defense, that husband and two other white friends who were present, were utilizing their inherited privilege. Simply put, they were raised in a society that attached significance to their ethnicity. They tapped into that inherited right and defended me.

Those memories of life in Midwest America returned while watching a video someone sent me a few days ago. The story in the video was told by a black woman. She and her sister-in-law grew up together. Her sister-in-law was half white and half black with blue eyes, “whiter than most white folks.” Along with their spouses and children, they shared wonderful, multicultural family times. 

Both women were in the check-out line at a neighborhood supermarket. Kathleen, the sister-in-law, checked her groceries first. The cashier who was a strawberry blond, freckled and extremely warm, engaged Kathleen in pleasant small talk. During the friendly exchange, Kathleen prepared and submitted a personal check for her groceries. “She picked up her groceries and waited for me a few feet away.”

“It was now my turn to be served. The pleasant demeanor that Kathleen got was gone. My groceries were checked and I got my check book ready to pay.” On submitting my check I was told that I needed two pieces of identification.”

My ten-year old daughter who was witnessing this ordeal began to cry. “Mommy, why is she doing this to us?” I am now trying to figure-out how best to react to this ordeal. Behind me are two elderly white women – I know I had to avoid becoming the typical “angry black woman.”

I chose to avoid conflict and submitted the two pieces of identification that the cashier requested. I could not imagine that this situation could get worse until the cashier pulled out the “bad checks book.” She wanted to see if I was listed among customers with a bounced-check record.

By this time, I am thoroughly humiliated and my daughter is sobbing with embarrassment. My sister-in-law Kathleen had seen enough. She intervened.

“Excuse me! Why are you doing this?” “What do you mean?” replied the cashier. “Why are you taking her through all of these procedures, why are you doing this?” “Well, this is our policy.” “This is not your policy - you did not do this to me.”

“Well, I know you,” said the cashier. “No! No! She has been living here for years. I have only lived here for three months,” said Kathleen. At this point the two white elderly ladies exclaimed, “Oh, we can’t believe what this cashier has done with this woman – this is totally unacceptable.”

On hearing the commotion, the manager walked over – “Is there a problem here?” “Oh yes,” replied Kathleen. “There is a problem here and this is what happened.”

Although Kathleen was half black and half white, she used her white privilege to point out an injustice. Her stand for justice influenced others around her. Kathleen knew, that because of her color, she inherited rights from society – in other words, white privilege. She used that right to educate and correct an injustice.

Like me, had this black woman reacted, she would have been perceived to be another angry black. It was the person with the assumed privilege to make the difference. However, to make such a difference, requires courage and an awareness that one's pigmentation does not make one superior.

Not until we continue to have authentic conversations and apply biblical truth to our discourse, would we begin to see things differently. When non-Jewish Christians were being treated as second-class believers, Paul insisted, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Agreed, white privilege can be destructive, and more so among Christians. In Christ, Christians should celebrate ethnic differences and not use such differences as badges of privilege.

EVERY Black Life Matters

The fact that black leaders have served as President, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State and other cabinet positions does not make a difference – there are voices in America that contend, the lives of some black people do not matter. The issue concerns an ethnic group – black skinned people. People in this category are often of African descent.

As a member of this ethnic group, I am very concerned about specific behaviors in our society that suggest, black-skinned people do not matter. In response to that attitude, I contend, “Every Black Life Matters.” Here are some situations that help to shape my concerns. 

ABORTION
In the United States, more black babies are killed by abortion than any other ethnic group. Black children are aborted at nearly four times the rate as white children. A black abortion rate that for years has vastly surpassed that of every other racial group. Thirty out of every 1,000 black women obtained an abortion in 2011. That rate is nearly triple that of white women and double that of Hispanic women. Put succinctly, while about 13 percent of Americans are black, more than one-third of all abortions are administered to black women. (source)

FAMILY LIFE
In black communities, more babies are born out of wedlock than any other ethnic group - preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. (source)

CRIME
Black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers than whites because blacks commit more violent crimes than whites per capita.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites. More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. 

UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rates among blacks are higher than any other ethnic group in America. In February, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 10.4 percent, while the comparable rates for whites, Hispanics and Asians were 4.7 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.0 percent, in that order, according to data recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MARRIAGE
The black divorcee rate has increased nearly five-fold over the last thirty years, and is double the rate of the general population. The result, according to The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, is a greater share of family responsibilities being borne by women, an increased vulnerability to poverty and violence, and an erosion of community ties. 

Were it not so painful, I could go on to provide statistics on incarceration, education and drugs. Honestly, we need a campaign where politicians, educators, religious leaders and everyone committed to human development would engage in civil conversation. We need a non-partisan approach to bring about healing within black communities.

I beg to disagree with those who argue that because of slavery the situation is hopeless. As a nation, and since slavery, America has benefited greatly from the contributions of blacks. There are many blacks who have invented a multitude of items or made discoveries in the course of their lives. These have ranged from practical everyday devices to applications and scientific discoveries in diverse fields, including physics, biology, mathematics, plus the medical, nuclear and space sciences. 

I sincerely believe a big part of the solution is in the family. Stable families provide the foundation for stable communities. It is in the family we learn to respect authority structures. It is in the family we learn the value of faith and appreciate social graces. 

Social experiments have invited parents to explore career opportunities, thus limiting the time parents spend nurturing their children. Electronic devices and social services cannot and should not be expected to replace parents. 

Let us stop the posturing and get to the heart of the matter. Let us begin to educate and reward healthy families. We cannot continue to empower single mothers and allow irresponsible fathers to abscond. If every black life matters, we must be intentional and address the family, the nursery for stable communities.  

Planned Parenthood

A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates that there have been an estimated 55 million abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions. This number means that there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 140 abortions per hour, every hour in the United States.

Most of these abortions were done by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. According to its website, Planned Parenthood is “America's most trusted provider of reproductive health care.”

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s history is not as impressive as its website. The vision of Margaret Sanger, one of the two founders of the movement paints a picture of a racist with clear intentions to systematically exterminate black people in America.

In an interview with the New York Times (1923), Sanger said, “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks – those human weeds (blacks) which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Sanger established her first full-service “clinic” in Harlem in 1929. Why Harlem, New York - that’s where a lot of the black people, she often referred to as “human weeds”, lived. Sanger described it as “an experimental clinic established for the benefit of the colored people.” In this case, she defined “benefit” as the overall reduction of the black population.

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions – 30% of abortions done.

Although this information is known by civil rights leaders and politicians, no one attempts to abort the largest abortion provider in this country. Instead, Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually from tax payers – that means it receives an average of $1.5 million a day to conduct its business.

In order to augment its income as a not-for-profit organization, Planned Parenthood now sells body parts from babies. 

Recently, Planned Parenthood was caught in a firestorm of well-deserved controversy after two undercover videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, seem to implicate them in horrific crimes against the unborn. The videos show two top Planned Parenthood executives discussing the best methods to extract baby body parts intact, and haggling with undercover investigators over the prices of these body parts – how disgusting.

Whereas Planned Parenthood calls the organs of murdered babies “fetal tissue,” they call unborn babies “clumps of cells” until labeling their organs as “human” helps their bottom line. And they call their murder of millions “quality family planning.”

Most the body parts are sold to Stem Express, a California-based biomedical company that provides “qualified research laboratories with human cells, fluids, blood and tissue products for the pursuit of disease detection and cure.” 

There are a number of things that upset me about the disgusting practices of Planned Parenthood. From its inception, the founder showed a disregard for a group of persons, seen as “defective stocks and human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” That racist premise was the foundation of the movement.

In responding to the recent sale of body parts, Planned Parenthood wants us to believe that this is a good business practice. No, this is repulsive, sickening and ghastly. After looking at the Consolidated Balance Sheets for 2014, Planned Parenthood does not need to sell body parts to augment income. The company is a victim of its gruesome practices.

Thankfully, the company’s attitude to abortion is not the same to a wide variety of human services. I would love to see many of those services retained, but under a different banner. The stench and the sigma of a sordid history must be removed. Until that happens, I will support the move to defund Planned Parenthood. 

In attempting to close the door on disgusting practices, Christians must ensure that we do not close our compassion to “the least of these”, to whom Jesus referred.

Flames in Ferguson

Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson is both a police officer and a symbol. As a police officer, he was taken before a St. Louis County grand jury for the death of Michael Brown. After several days of deliberation, the twelve-panel jury saw no grounds for indicting the officer for the shooting death of Michael Brown. 

Brown was shot to death by the police officer following a confrontation with the officer. From information released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Brown was at fault in that he accosted a uniformed police officer in a marked police car. The police officer contended that “he feared for his life, that he had never before seen such aggression directed towards a police officer.” 

As a police officer, Darren Wilson was set free. He was not freed because he was white. He was freed because as a police officer he was within his rights to defend a personal threat and a threat to his authority as a law enforcement officer. 

However, as a representative of a system of power, he is still being tried. This time the trial is taking place on the streets of Ferguson. Opportunists, angered by a system that targets minorities and uses excessive force to subdue them, have resorted to violent protests.

In order to understand this tragedy, many persons must be blamed. Many in the media must be blamed for the use of inflammatory language, totally unrelated to the facts of the Michael Brown case. For example, to describe the victim as “an unarmed, black eighteen-year-old,” or as “a gentle giant” is to suggest to the reader that an innocent and gentle teen was overpowered by “a white armed police officer.” Such descriptions appeal to the emotions and are not intended to provoke thoughtful analysis of what actually happened. 

Some of the local and federal politicians must also share blame for the flames in Ferguson. Rather than use the occasion to foster healthy dialog and defuse tension, politicians chose to encourage peaceful protests. Many knew that peaceful protests would not be possible. Then why did the politicians not encourage more civil discourse? Why did the politicians not assure the people of Ferguson that the judicial system was designed to bring about a just result? 

Why were people not reminded that many changes in a civil society begin at the ballot box? When people choose not to vote, they should not blame others for their negligence. Elected officials appoint persons who they believe are suitable to serve. When we elect officials of our choice, we are more likely to see civil servants reflecting our choices.

For instance, 70% of the residents in Ferguson are black. However, in 2013, less than 12% of blacks, eligible to vote, actually cast a ballot. The result, Ferguson's black majority is minimally represented in its government. Ferguson black residents need to reshape their city’s electoral landscape – legally, that takes place at the ballot box and not through violence on the streets. 

In a recent Early Voting appeal in Ferguson, citizens were reminded that five of its six city council members and 94% of its police force were white. The appeal went on to say “...if we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change. The choices may not always be perfect, but the cost of inaction is simply too great.”  

In the absence of responsible citizenship, the Justice Department has begun a federal probe into whether police officers in Ferguson have used racial profiling or overly aggressive force. The Civil Rights Division is also investigating whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown’s civil rights. 

Whatever the political outcome, the parents of Michael Brown will continue to carry the pain of losing their son prematurely. As expected, they were disappointed with the outcome. Very maturely, they appealed to protesters to channel their frustration in ways that will make positive change.  

They further appealed to everyone to “join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera. We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction. Let’s not just make noise, let’s make a difference.” 

The Browns are echoing a Christian theme – we should make every effort to live at peace with everyone. In his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:18-21). 

I wish for you and everyone in Ferguson, a blessed thanksgiving. Upon arrival to the United States, the first four thanksgiving celebrations my family and I observed were in St. Louis, Missouri. Despite the gloom, I am confident that there are still more good things for which we can be thankful.

Fair & Free From Fear

The 2014 midterm elections have gone – however, not the memories. This was my first time voting since my recent status as a citizen. As a novice to the process, I have very much for which to be thankful. 

For days I prayed that the elections would be fair and free from fear. From all appearances, it would seem as though my prayer was answered. In my community it was a quiet day – I discovered many persons had opted for early voting. I was among the 43% of Floridians who voted.

Nationally, voter turnout in the elections was terrible. Imagine, only 36.3% of eligible voters cast votes. The New York Times reported that this election was the worst turnout in 72 years. Only the 1942 election (33.9%) had a lower rate of voter turnout. Voter turnout is usually measured as a proportion of registered voters rather than of those eligible to vote — and census numbers show that more than 70 million Americans of voting age are not registered voters. 

With a voter turnout of less than 36%, one questions the moral basis for the claim that the winners got a clear mandate to rule. Interestingly, if the Constitution required a simple majority for election results to be valid, many elections in America would be cancelled for the lack of a quorum. 

In addition, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group whose job is to track political spending, estimated that candidates, parties, committees, outside groups and donors spent at least $3.67 billion on the 2014 midterm elections, some $40 million more than what was spent in 2010. 

Pollsters contend that most persons did not vote because they “just couldn’t be bothered”. Say what? Do you know how many countries would love to have an opportunity to vote in elections that are free from fear? Even many persons within developed countries wish they had an electoral system like the United States. For instance, whereas the US Constitution has established limits and specific times for elections, many countries within the Westminster Model face sudden elections, with the timing often favoring the ruling government.

Apart from having one of the best electoral systems in the world, I am especially grateful for the recent midterm elections for a number of reasons. One was the sheer demeanor displayed by congressional candidate Dan Bongino. He lost to Democrat John Delaney. 

In his concession speech, Bongino revealed that his wife had been experiencing health issues, which had forced him to limit campaign appearances. Upon learning of her illness, Bongino’s opponent, responded with a handwritten letter “expressing his heartfelt concerns for my wife and my family, given the circumstances we were dealing with.” Bongino graciously admitted, “I never forgot that, it reminded me that although our wonderful country is currently marked by passionate political differences, these differences should never become personal.”

Yes, that happened in America, and I wished it got more press. I could also say the same about Mia Love from Utah. For years I have followed this 37-year old political leader. On her second attempt she won her seat to represent her district – she is the first black female Republican in Congress. 

In response to a journalist who attempted to credit her gender and ethnicity for her success, Mia Love responded, “This is historic but it’s not because of the color of my skin - it’s historic because Utah has decided to elect a person based on their principles.” She represents a district with fewer than 2% of black voters.  

Both in the case of Mia Love and Tim Scott, it would seem as though an increasing number of Americans are prepared to vote for character rather than color. Scott is the first black lawmaker elected to both chambers of Congress. He represents South Carolina, a state with just about 28% black citizens.

Another interesting record was broken in Iowa. Joni Ernst’s win makes her the first female combat veteran to get elected to the Senate and the first woman in Congress from that state. Another first among women, was Elise Stefanik, 30, who when elected, became the youngest female member of Congress.

In addition, 37-year-old Arkansas GOP Rep. Tom Cotton winning a Senate seat makes him the youngest member of the upper chamber. Although she will not be in Washington, Saira Blair, just eighteen, won the election for West Virginia’s 59th House District. Still a freshman at West Virginia University, Saira became the youngest state lawmaker in the nation after sweeping 63% of the vote.  

I suppose by now you understand why I am so thankful after the midterm elections – ethnic walls are continuing to break down, gender equality is more evident and our youth are continuing to assume positions of leadership. I thank God that He has allowed me to participate in such an electoral system – not perfect, but certainly fair and free from fear.

Why Should I Vote?

One of two responsibilities of U.S. citizens is to vote in federal elections. Although the law does not require citizens to vote, it is obvious that voting is a very important part of any democracy. By voting citizens are participating in the democratic process.
Among other things, the democratic process requires citizens to elect eligible fellow citizens to represent their ideas – in essence, to form the government. This government is “for the people”, meaning that the sole purpose of government is to act in ways that benefit citizens.

In my last commentary, I contended that the words “we the people” in the opening sentence of the Constitution meant that people set up the government. Basic lessons in American Civics would confirm that the government works for the people and protects the rights of people.

The Founders of the United States decided that this country should be a representative democracy. They wanted a nation ruled by laws. In a representative democracy, the people choose officials to make laws and represent their views and concerns in government. Hence, elections is the mechanism provided by the Constitution to ensure that citizens can elect leaders of their choice to govern.

When eligible citizens fail to vote, they are abrogating a primary responsibility of citizenship. Whereas the government is responsible to ensure that every citizen can vote, it is the responsibility of every citizen to vote. Hence, to choose not to vote when one can vote is irresponsible. 

Because millions of Americans will be voting on Tuesday, it is easy for some to conclude that their single vote is not needed - that is illogical. The truth is, every vote counts. Ask the people of Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania, Africa). On January 18, 1961, the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single vote/seat. The seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island had been gained by a single vote. According to the Guinness World Book of Records, that was the closest general elections ever recorded in the world.  

Some of us can remember the Presidential Elections of 2000. Then, President George W. Bush won the election by a margin of just half of a percentage point of the 110 million Americans who cast votes. The message is simple – every vote counts. 

I have met American citizens who decide against voting for some of the most trivial reasons. Some contend that if it is not a Presidential Election, then it is not important. That is not true. Electing persons to Congress is as critical as electing a President. As a matter of fact, congressional representatives are closer to my community than the President. 

The Framers of the Constitution believed that short two-year terms and frequent elections would keep representatives close to their constituents, public opinion, and more aware of local and community concerns. One can therefore understand why the population of a state determines the number of representatives in Congress. In this way, states with many people have a stronger voice in the House of Representatives. 

For a moment I must comment on persons who choose not to vote because candidates do not represent the preferences of the voter. In such cases, it is possible that the prospective voter did not influence the process of choosing the candidate. Furthermore, no candidate will ever represent all the preferences of voters. Most times one elects persons who best represent their preferences.

Far too often we choose candidates because of political party affiliation and not the personal suitability of the representatives. For me, parties do not vote on my preferences, representatives do. Agreed, political parties provide the platform for representatives. However, it is representatives who govern and are accountable to citizens.  

I now have my Voter Guide and will continue to study how candidates view my preferences. I will also be studying state constitutional amendments that are on the ballots. Studying the issues is critical for me, if I am going to register my preferences on Tuesday. 

As a Christian, I have too much at stake to take federal elections lightly. The New Testament encourages me to pray for political leaders. The purpose for prayer is to ensure “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). That objective requires more than closing my eyes in a prayer gathering.

Desiring leaders who can facilitate a peaceful and quiet lifestyle requires me to influence the choice of those leaders. In addition, that requires me to hold those leaders accountable for the lifestyles they promised. For me, the voting booth provides an excellent venue to accomplish my goals. In addition, because it is the responsible thing to do, I will be casting my first vote in America on Tuesday morning.

MLK TAUGHT US The Power of Meekness

Some people believe the words power and meekness should never appear in the same sentence. Such persons would very likely describe meekness as weakness. That view of meekness is false and the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates that.
From his sermons and his life, Dr. King attempted to demonstrate a biblical understanding of meekness. He believed the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were prescriptive and not merely descriptive. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). 

Dr. King understood that Jesus was using language, familiar to His listeners. They knew that meekness was used in the context of trainers who brought wild stallions under control. Although stallions symbolized sheer “horse” power, they could be tamed to behave as gentle animals. Hence, when one thought of meekness, one thought of power under control. 

Today, horse power under control is used by physical and occupational therapists. These specialists practice hippotherapy, incorporating the movement of horses into the total care plan of their patients. In essence, controlled power can perform a different kind of powerful service.

While addressing a packed hall at the University of California – Berkley on June 4, 1957, Dr. King chose as his topic: The Power of Nonviolence. Here is a summary of his presentation:

- Non-violence is not a method of cowardice. He stressed that the non-violent resister was just as opposed to evil as the violent resister. However, non-violence should not be confused with stagnant passivity and deadening complacency.
- Non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but seeks to win his friendship and understanding. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community.
- A boycott is never an end within itself but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor. The end is reconciliation and redemption.
- The nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than the individual who happens to be caught up in the system. For Dr. King, the struggle was between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.

Dr. King’s display of meekness was honed by his Christian worldview of love - a love that sought nothing in return. He loved his enemies, not because they were likable, but because God loved them. He loved the person who disliked blacks but loathed the system that perpetuated hatred for others.

Dr. King was convinced that only through love one was able to really conquer injustice and violence. He felt the ultimate weakness of violence was a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it was seeking to destroy - instead of diminishing evil, violence multiplied evil.

According to Dr. King, “through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

Today’s celebration of the birth of Dr. King provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the life of a pastor who knew God and sought to live-out his understanding of biblical principles.

Dr. King responded well to a rich heritage of pastoral influences. Hear his words: “I am...the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great grandson of a Baptist preacher. The Church is my life and I have given my life to the Church.”

Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor. The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”

Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage. 

50 years

My daughter Candace and her husband Louis have four young children. As a former professional, mother and homeschooler she has a vested interest in the future that is laid for her children. I have asked her to be my guest for this week’s commentary.

To think back fifty years in this country is to think back to a time before I was born. Since then, I have lived outside of and within different parts of this great nation, each time gleaning racial experiences – good and bad.

I want to say we have come so far – desegregation of schools and places of employment, integrated neighborhoods and families, a black President in office, the list could go on and on.

But as far a step as we have made, I fear we have taken many steps backwards – and not for the popular reasons being floated out there in the blogosphere, in newsrooms or even at last week’s 50-year Memorial of 'The March on Washington' that took place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

In the past fifty years, we have stepped away from some of the fundamentals that Dr. King held dearly, choosing to excuse or embrace the demise of the black family; the 70% of black babies born out of wedlock; the 1,800 black babies killed daily through abortion; the almost 50% unemployment among black youth and a bloody summer that highlighted the continuing problem of black on black homicides.
I am not willing to sit back and play along with those claiming that Rev. Martin Luther King would be proud of our accomplishments today. Unlike those who flash the ‘Reverend’ title for political and monetary gain, Rev. Martin Luther King actually tried to live a life that sought to center around hard work, faith and family.

Dr. King’s mission taxed his marriage and family life, but of his wife he said “I am indebted to my wife Coretta, without whose love, sacrifices, and loyalty neither life nor work would bring fulfillment."
In addition to being the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King completed his Ph.D. and was awarded his degree in 1955. King was only 25 years old.
At the age of 35, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.

The ideals of faith, family and diligent work used to be encouraged in the black community at large. For all the accomplishments we have acquired as a community, I think Dr. King would ask – Is this really what we suffered for fifty years ago?

Jaime Foxx graced the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last Wednesday, naming our present civil rights leaders as Jay Z, Will Smith, Kanye West and others.
The list of invited speakers at the fifty-year Memorial Celebration of Dr. King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech did not include pioneers in some of the highest offices or areas of accomplishments by African Americans. The nation’s first black and first black female Secretaries of State were not invited to speak. The nation’s only black Senator was not invited to speak. The nation’s first and (at the time) youngest black neurosurgeon was not invited to speak. While entertainers of all sorts were well represented and tickled our ears with words of grandeur, I guess the former were all associated with the wrong side of the aisle (and by that I don’t mean the church aisle).

Sometimes I can only wonder – what kind of vision have we cast for our youth for the next fifty years?
We have strayed so far from the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that we no longer know what it means to judge a man by the caliber or content of his character, his labor or his legacy. Instead, we have bought into the culture that says the opposite: embrace racial and social lines above character, above goals, above ambition.

Fifty years ago The March on Washington was filled with people of all sorts: black, white; male, female; rich, poor; Republican, Democrat – they were willing and able to work together because above their comfort or agendas they found it important to be unified, not as one group above another, but as Americans under God.

The messages of today towards our children seem to shout of entitlements. But is that what the Bible encourages for us? As parents, my husband and I have been teaching our children the word diligent – a word that fueled the civil rights movement. Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” Such commitments lead to discipline, perseverance and character.

I have four children, and like Dr. King I still dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).

Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.

I had just completed another lecture in the course, Religion in America. That day we viewed the film, “We Shall Not Be Moved.” The film chronicled the non-violent civil rights struggle of the fifties and sixties. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was portrayed as a pastor and civil rights leader.

At the end of the class I was approached by an African American student. He was stunned to learn that Dr. King was a real pastor. Although he had done a course in African American history in high school, Dr. King was always presented as a civil rights advocate.

Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”

“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”

Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.

The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.

As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott. 

King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.

As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.

King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence. 

The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon. 

He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”

Why aren’t we told about the heart of this pastor during this season of remembrance? Interestingly, it was during the extemporaneous moments of his “I Have a Dream” speech, his pastoral passion became most visible as he cited references from the Minor Prophets to justify his theses of justice and mercy.

Who Needs Daddy?

Shortly after giving birth, my daughter felt a hospital social worker was suggesting to her that it was better not to have the child’s father around. “If you do not have a husband with you, we will pay for the baby’s diapers and formula.” My daughter declined the offer. The social worker offered again, at which point our son-in-law walked into the room. “Do you want him in here?” was the daring question that came from the social worker.

I wish I could say that that interaction at a suburban hospital was exceptional – it was not. The interaction represented an attitude to the role of fathers in the lives of their children. He is merely viewed as a bank, both for sperms and financial support. If he is absent, the government will provide the funding. There are situations where it would seem more economically profitable for mothers, if fathers would simply be absent. 

However, the economic cost of absent fathers is staggering. In his book, Life Without Father, sociologist David Popenoe contends that “the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague us.” He further contends that "child-rearing encourages men to develop those habits of character - including prudence, cooperativeness, honesty, trust and self-sacrifice - that can lead to achievement as an economic provider." Poor women and their children are more likely to escape poverty in a stable relationship with a man who is an active father of the children. 

Edward Kruk, writing about father absence, father deficit and father hunger in “Psychology Today” produced a list of woes: children without fathers actively in their lives have diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security. These children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and bouts of self-loathing.

Kruk also underlines the behavioral problems - fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships. Many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness. Gangs and violence and the adoration of the gun as power spring out of this condition.

Fatherless children show greater truancy from school and poorer academic performance. Kruk points out that some 71% of high-school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills.

Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85% of youth in prison having an absent father.

The above statistics explain why I become so incensed with social workers like the one my daughter met in the hospital. She, like many in our society, would be willing to affirm the worth of mothers. But fathers? that is another matter. With such persons, fatherhood is viewed merely as a social role. And if merely a social role, then perhaps anyone is capable of playing that role. Players could include mothers, partners, stepfathers, uncles, aunts or grandparents. In essence, biological fathers are dispensable.
Miami Heat basketball superstar Dwayne Wade would disagree with that view. In a recent article, the single father said, “being a father is the most important and rewarding thing I will ever do, and I strongly encourage all fathers to love and take responsibility for their children.”

Last year, Wade wrote a book about his experience and the importance of all fathers being present in their children's lives. Addressing the fatherlessness issue across the country, he also teamed up with President Obama to support his Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative.
One of the better books I’ve come across on the subject of fatherhood is Kyle Pruett’s, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. According to Publishers Weekly, Pruett’s book is “thoughtful, inspiring, and eminently practical, [it] belongs at the top of the ‘must have’ list for every father.”

Interestingly, after relegating the Bible to the archives of ancient literature, many are now finding themselves going back to its teachings. Even a casual reading of the book of Proverbs will highlight the importance of fatherhood. In the New Testament book of Ephesians, fathers are encouraged to nurture and encourage their children in Christian values. Fathers are charged not to abuse their influence and exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4).

Personally, I wish I had known this stuff when I became a father 36 years ago. I believe I would have been a much better father to our three children.