Should You Celebrate Civil-Rights Activist and Sex-Pervert Martin Luther King Jr. this MLK Day?
Sex trafficking is bad. Adultery is bad. Hypocrisy is really, really bad. These are things that even pagans agree upon (generally). As Christians, we can also add a few other things to the “bad” list as it pertains to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Orgies are bad. Homosexuality is bad. Heresy is bad. All of these things typify Martin Luther King Jr.
When a civilized and decent society – especially one with a substantial segment of that society that professes Jesus – beatifies a sex-trafficking adulterer and homosexual, it doesn’t elevate that society to higher plains of decency. Society doesn’t become better by virtue signaling alone, especially when the virtue being signaled is tied intrinsically to a man with little virtue.
Before we get to Martin Luther King Jr., let us demonstrate the standard of decency that our American society has mutually agreed upon as a fair exchange in the Marketplace of Ideas. We have – generally speaking – agreed that men who take advantage of women or who treat women like disposable sexual objects should not be promoted and should not advance in influence.
In this blossoming #metoo movement, which has by and large been a good thing, we are told that “character matters” and that those of low moral character, particularly Presidents, should be doubly scrutinized and held to a higher standard.
As a general rule, we don’t want to be a society that supports, condones, or celebrates scumbags who are engaged in scumbaggery, even if they promote policies we like. Even though most are inconsistent in that rule’s application, we agree with that premise.
The nearly-universal agreement that men who use women as sexual playthings shouldn’t be celebrated, promoted, voted for, hired or promoted (or even employed) is so accepted that two years ago the most recognizable conservative political figure in Alabama lost a “sure-thing” election against a Democrat in a deeply red state in the form of Roy Moore.
Evangelicals like Russell Moore and the Social Gospel Coalition warriors fought vehemently against Donald Trump for his low character. For years they took potshots at him, recently calling for his impeachment over it. But despite the thunderous refrain that his character disqualifies him from any appreciation and admiration for his policies and the practices he sought to implement and advance, they cannot – with any degree of consistency – celebrate the legacy of a man whose utter depravity makes Donald Trump look like a choir boy.
The ability to celebrate Martin Luther King in the age of the Weinstein Effect is gross negligence. It’s only the product of inconsistency. And, that inconsistency is inexcusable.
Although it has been very, very common knowledge (for a very, very long time) that Martin Luther King Jr. had no more personal integrity than Reverends Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, he has been venerated by American civil society, the evidence regarding King’s gross sexual sins entered into official government documentation when the “JFK Files” were released a few years ago.
As a part of that civil society, evangelicals have happily jumped on the bandwagon celebrating MLK. We wrote about this in the post, It’s Time to Stop Beatifying Martin Luther King, Jr. We wrote then:
President Donald Trump ordered the release of documents relating to President John F. Kennedy from the National Archives, and those documents contain a dossier on King. What they reveal, according to Fox News and other sources, is that King had multiple extramarital affairs, likely sired an out-of-wedlock child with his mistress, and had a penchant for orgies. Please note that these have all been common knowledge about King, but these documents provide hard evidence of the claims.
The Washington Examiner claims that a 20-page document details a “two-day drunken sex orgy in Washington D.C.” attended by King, in which he took part in the festivities. The primary source document may be read here. The document reveals that the orgy contained both heterosexual and homosexual behavior (it’s long been known that King engaged in bi-sexual behavior). Claims that this document is an attempt by J. Edgar Hoover to slander King are entirely foolish, considering that this was an internal report that was sealed from the public.
The document also details MLK’s communist sentiments, quoting a “Gus Hall,” who was the General Secretary of CPUSA (the Communist Party), as saying, “King is a whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it, believes in it, and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly.”
Furthermore, the document cites attendees at several of his events who testify to “behind the scenes drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference,” and provided testimony of prostitutes being brought in for King and his associates. The document also reveals that King was carrying ongoing affairs with at least three women, including a prominent folk singer. The document states, “It is a fact that King not only regularly indulges in adulterous acts but enjoys the abnormal by engaging in group sex orgies.”
It’s not really a conspiracy at this point. There is documentation. There is evidence. These are not new allegations; these are only newly proven allegations. They’ve been known about and reported upon for a long time. They substantiate the testimonies of the people surrounding King (who were a part of his movement for racial equality), who testified to his behavior. Anyone who is an expert on MLK, a historian of any sort, knows that Martin Luther King’s personal life was rife with sexual escapades that involved many women, including prostitutes (we call that “sex trafficking” today), and even men.
There’s another issue for Christians that may not be controversial for pagans; King was a heretic. There’s no doubt about this. He denied the Virgin Birth, denied Scriptural inerrancy, had very troublesome views of the atonement and was by all accounts a theological liberal. He wrote in one paper:
The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that Christ … is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental… So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.
And in another:
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. Each of these doctrines is enshrined in what is known as “the Apostles’ Creed.” It is this creed that has stood as a “Symbol of Faith” for many Christians over the years. Even to this day it is recited in many churches. But in the minds of many sincere Christians this creed has planted a seed of confusion which has grown to an oak of doubt. They see this creed as incompatible with all scientific knowledge, and so they have proceeded to reject its content.
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 philosophically untenable,
…This doctrine (the resurrection), upon which the Easter faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. 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.
From start to finish, King denied the fundamentals of Christianity, practicing a liberation and social-gospel theology.
As the Christian Research Institute notes:
In 1985, Coretta Scott King asked Stanford professor Clayborne Carson to become the head of The King Papers Project, tasked to publish fourteen volumes of King’s papers to preserve his work. The papers’ dates range from 1948 to 1963. Around 1996, Mrs. King gave Carson a box with papers that affirmed King’s doubts about whether the Bible was literally true: “King didn’t believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as ‘mythological’ and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.”
This makes it especially curious when men like Ed Setzer and institutions like Wheaton College put on an event “focusing on preaching ministry of MLK” as if he weren’t a rank heretic whose preaching should be viewed as specious and suspect.
So then, other than virtue-signaling one’s lack of racism (an overly-simplistic and sophomoric idea of, “If I celebrate MLK, I’m not racist”), why would a pagan who affirms our common cultural belief that those who use women as sexual objects or abuse their positions of authority for sexual treats then celebrate MLK? Furthermore, how could a Christian who affirms Biblical teaching celebrate one who taught contrary to it and lived contrary to it?
Now, the answer might be, “In spite of his flaws, King promoted good ideas like equality, justice, and racial harmony.” Yes, ane men they hate like the former President Trump promoted ideas like religious freedom, and peace in the Middle East, supported legislation to end late-term abortions, created an Economic boom that lifted millions out of poverty, reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, stopped the federal funding of fetal tissue research, and was the first American President to attend March for Life.
You can appreciate what one has done in one area without celebrating them in a teary-eyed near-deification ceremony. You can appreciate a person for a good deed while being circumspect about their gross moral failings. You can praise the way the Lord used a crooked stick to draw a straight line without celebrating that crooked stick.
And not only celebrating that crooked stick but insisting it’s actually a straight, smooth bar of gold whose faults and impurities must never be acknowledged, or whose preaching must be honored and lauded.
Editor’s note. A portion of this article was republished from a post a few years ago.
About Author
Always on point as usual
That was eye opening.
Mic drop! (Or is it keyboard drop?)
This issue of MLK has caused me some concern as to his liberal heresy . I just wonder if anyone has ever heard him preach Christ crucified for the remission of sin?
His fruit looks a lot more ripe than yours.
I guess all you have to do in our dumbed-down world is give a good and passionate speech about civil rights and nothing else matters about your character and real religious beliefs. We seem to want our so-called leaders shallow, don’t we, because it’s a reflection of us? Have you yet been in a major city in the US that hasn’t had a Martin Luther King Blvd. in it?
If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t it Joan Baez who was the folk singer King had an affair with? Also, does anyone know if it’s true that his real name was Michael King?
What you should have said was nothing at all.
I did not post this (Protestia editors, please block this individual!).
King was an ardent adulterer and whore-mongerer who identified as a Marxist. On top of that, he was a confirmed serial plagiarist, with few original ideas. In short, he was a deviant wolve who preyed upon his flock. This man should be vilified, not revered.
I would like to read the source material for the 20 page report from the Washington Examiner. But the the link that says, here doesn’t seem to be working. In all fairness I’m not that great with electronics. But if something is wrong with it, could you fix it please.
The link worked for me. Maybe Protestia fixed it already. Here it is explicitly:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf
MLK’s fruit was love. Look at black people. Full of love. Not full of evil hate like whites. The FBI crime stats prove it.
I’m assuming this is snark, as the FBI crime stats do prove something, just not what you suggested 🙂