Should we take down MLK statues? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should we take down MLK statues?

Opening Argument

VaulkVaulk 434 Pts



The A.C.L.U. maintains that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people should be able to live openly without discrimination and enjoy equal rights, personal autonomy, and freedom of expression and association.  Martin Luther King Jr. was opposed to this and although the A.C.L.U. holds firmly that the right for LGBT to marry is a Civil Right protected by the Constitution...MLK openly viewed the topic of homosexuality as a problem that needed solving.

The only representation we have from Dr. King that would elude to his view/stance on the matter was an article from Ebony Magazine in which he responded to a letter from a boy who claimed to have feelings for boys.

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

As far as I know, there's no other statements from MLK himself that can explain further his view on the matter.  His surviving Family have different views on the issue but none of them can speak for Dr. King.


So how about it?  Dr. King felt that homosexuality was a problem that needed psychiatric help and furthermore reaffirmed the boy's statement that "He has a problem that stems from feeling about boys the way he ought to feel about girls".  LGBT rights are Civil Rights according to the A.C.L.U. so do we tear Dr. King's statues down because he was a hypocrite that only selectively supported Civil Rights?

  1. Should we remove Dr. King's statues?

    12 votes
    1. Yes
      25.00%
    2. No
      75.00%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    edited March 29
    I think you will find everyone of his generation was of a like mind , to be logically consistent any statues of people from his generation or previous generations will have to come down , that’s an awful lot of statues 
    NoahShields
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    I don't honestly think it's much of a debate, it's more of an attempt to get people thinking about what they're really suggesting when they say "We should remove X statue".  It's absurd to insist that someone had a particular view or opinion 50-500 years ago that doesn't conform to today's popular opinion and so we need to remove any social acknowledgement of that person as a result.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DeeDee 91 Pts

    @Vaulk

    I agree , we hear it all the time and it’s a ridiculous argument especially if one took it to extremes and said “ fine let’s take down down all statues of Jesus as he disapproved of gay marriage also “ 
  • Vaulk said:
    I don't honestly think it's much of a debate, it's more of an attempt to get people thinking about what they're really suggesting when they say "We should remove X statue".  It's absurd to insist that someone had a particular view or opinion 50-500 years ago that doesn't conform to today's popular opinion and so we need to remove any social acknowledgement of that person as a result.
    It's more absurd that you keep the statue since the 'relevance' of the person is equally outdated to their 'peer pressured therefore acceptable' views.

    Thank you, checkmate.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • We shouldn’t. Nor should we take down confederate statues. First off, its history, second off, for a lot of southerners, its heritage.
    Sonofason
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • No. The thought process behind taking down statues of people who have done negative things is not a simplistic binary process of "Has this person done anything wrong ever: yes./no" but rather a contextual assessment of their overall activities. I think most people will think holding homophobic opinions which he didn't seem to act on or make a big show of doesn't overshadow his work on the civil rights movement.
    anonymousdebater
  • Only if the voters geographically located near said statue vote representatives who chose to remove it.
  • Regardless of a person of the past view, what does it matter?  We are to learn from history not tear it down because we don't agree with views of the past.  Same goes for tearing down the civil war statues, while I don't want one in my yard unless someone has purposely erected a statue for hateful reasons it should not be taken down.
    anonymousdebater
  • @with_all_humility

    If they weren't taken down, it would go against the democratic process.

    Statues are taken down by representatives voted into power. They aren't dictators. Don't want statues removed? Don't vote for them.
  • Ampersand said:
    No. The thought process behind taking down statues of people who have done negative things is not a simplistic binary process of "Has this person done anything wrong ever: yes./no" but rather a contextual assessment of their overall activities. I think most people will think holding homophobic opinions which he didn't seem to act on or make a big show of doesn't overshadow his work on the civil rights movement.
    Why do you say he was homophobic?  I was a minister, and held a biblical view.
  • @with_all_humility

    Simply because it was a Biblical view, doesn't make it less homophobic. The Bible is only a valid excuse for behaviour between Christians.
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    edited March 30
    @EmeryPearson

    I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.  A phobia is an unnatural fear of something, holding a belief based on Religious text from the Bible is hardly equivalent to an unnatural fear of homosexuals.  

    Secondly, the Bible isn't an excuse for anything, it's the source of more than you MIGHT think.  The civil rights that protect homosexuals are legal expressions of the Human rights that they derive from and those Human rights are derivative of the Bible.  The Constitution of the United States is but the body and letter of the thought and spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

    The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

    ~U.S. Supreme Court~

    The Declaration of Independence is formally AND OFFICIALLY recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as being the thought and spirit behind the Constitution.  The Declaration includes the justification that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given rights and THAT'S why they are unalienable.  

    In summary, The right to be homosexual while receiving equal and fair treatment is a right protected by the Constitution, which is officially recognized as being upheld by the principles established in the Declaration of Independence, which is officially recognized again as being based upon the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are officially and formally recognized as being unalienable rights given to us by God.  So says the 
    U.S. Supreme Court.
    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @EmeryPearson

    Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether it's adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way.


    Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    @EmeryPearson

    Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether it's adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way.


    Agreed wholly.  Very nicely put btw.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    @EmeryPearson

    Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether it's adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way.


    Agreed wholly.  Very nicely put btw.
    Why thank you, Sir, you were spot on with your with reminding all about Declaration of Independence, and previous SCOTUS decisions.  I believe that to be a large part of the issues were are facing as a Nation.  Whether gun right, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.  The Bill of Rights gives equal weight to each of those rights.  I know that may not be popular with some, but that's what this Country was founded on. 

    Thank again for pointing that out!
  • Ampersand said:
    No. The thought process behind taking down statues of people who have done negative things is not a simplistic binary process of "Has this person done anything wrong ever: yes./no" but rather a contextual assessment of their overall activities. I think most people will think holding homophobic opinions which he didn't seem to act on or make a big show of doesn't overshadow his work on the civil rights movement.
    Why do you say he was homophobic?  I was a minister, and held a biblical view.
    The two aren't mutually exclusive and the comment was homophobic.
  • "I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.  A phobia is an unnatural fear of something, holding a belief based on Religious text from the Bible is hardly equivalent to an unnatural fear of homosexuals.  "

    I can concede this, this would make his prejudice based out of ignorance, rather than fear.

    " The civil rights that protect homosexuals are legal expressions of the Human rights that they derive from and those Human rights are derivative of the Bible."

    This is contradictory, if true, you would be obligated to put gay men to death.
    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

    "The Declaration of Independence is formally AND OFFICIALLY recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as being the thought and spirit behind the Constitution.  The Declaration includes the justification that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given rights and THAT'S why they are unalienable.  "

    However, the Declaration of Independence in no way can be used as legal precedent. The Constitution is the governing document of the land, which is wholly secular.

    "In summary, The right to be homosexual while receiving equal and fair treatment is a right protected by the Constitution, which is officially recognized as being upheld by the principles established in the Declaration of Independence, which is officially recognized again as being based upon the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are officially and formally recognized as being unalienable rights given to us by God.  So says the 
    U.S. Supreme Court."

    Even if true, the Declaration if Independence is not legal precedence nor law. It cannot supercede the Constitution which is entirely secular. The Constitution establishes the secular nature of the United States and supersedes all else.

    "Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether it's adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way."

    Yes, I can recognize that his prejudice was based in ignorance rather than malice. To uphold them to modern standards doesn't often work with historical figures, but this is what the original post asks us to consider. Ultimately however, prejudice whether based in ignorance, or ill-intent, is still prejudice. You have convinced me that such prejudice was mild.
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    edited March 31
    "I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.  A phobia is an unnatural fear of something, holding a belief based on Religious text from the Bible is hardly equivalent to an unnatural fear of homosexuals.  "

    I can concede this, this would make his prejudice based out of ignorance, rather than fear.
    Well Said.

    This is contradictory, if true, you would be obligated to put gay men to death.
    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
    The founding fathers did not practice the Old Testament and thus did not establish the fundamental principles of the U.S. according to it.  Leviticus is one of the books of the old testament and the vast majority of Christians understand that it's not to be followed but instead understood as it still contains valuable lessons. 

    However, the Declaration of Independence in no way can be used as legal precedent. The Constitution is the governing document of the land, which is wholly secular.
    I'm certainly not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the DOI is or can be used as legal precedent.  It is however, irrelevant that the DOI is inadmissible as precedence, the point here is that the U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes officially and formally that the spirit of the DOI is ALWAYS to be used to read the Constitution.

    Even if true, the Declaration if Independence is not legal precedence nor law. It cannot supercede the Constitution which is entirely secular. The Constitution establishes the secular nature of the United States and supersedes all else.
    I would advise you to read here to gain an understanding of what "Secular" means.  I conclude that the U.S. constitution is absolutely NOT secular.  The absolute supreme arbiter of the United States has formally recognized that the Constitution is based HEAVILY upon the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Independence is based HEAVILY upon religious principles and formal recognition of God.  In order for something to be Secular...it must not be based upon religious or spiritual matters and the Constitution cannot fit that prerequisite.
    "Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether it's adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way."
    Actually, this is where you're wrong.  Dr. King instructed the young Man in his article that the young man's attraction to boys instead of girls was "A problem", more specifically "A problem that would require psychiatric treatment".  This does not in any way, shape or form equate "Condemning the sin not the sinner".  There's certainly nothing positive or even neutral about telling someone that they're personal preference and natural physical attraction to members of the same sex is a problem for a Psychiatrist to fix.  While I would agree that the connotation wasn't egregiously negative...it was negative none-the-less and certainly wasn't directed at the actions of the young Man but instead his desires.  Feeling an attraction to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex is not an action.


    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • edited March 31
    Ampersand said:
    Ampersand said:
    No. The thought process behind taking down statues of people who have done negative things is not a simplistic binary process of "Has this person done anything wrong ever: yes./no" but rather a contextual assessment of their overall activities. I think most people will think holding homophobic opinions which he didn't seem to act on or make a big show of doesn't overshadow his work on the civil rights movement.
    Why do you say he was homophobic?  I was a minister, and held a biblical view.
    The two aren't mutually exclusive and the comment was homophobic.
    Homophobic: Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.[1]

    Is that opinion or do you have evidence that when one does not agreeing with what someone does considered phobic?  There was nothing hateful or prejudice in his statement, Dr King did not even address the individual.  

    [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobic ;
  • edited March 31
    "I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.  A phobia is an unnatural fear of something, holding a belief based on Religious text from the Bible is hardly equivalent to an unnatural fear of homosexuals.  "

    I can concede this, this would make his prejudice based out of ignorance, rather than fear.

    " The civil rights that protect homosexuals are legal expressions of the Human rights that they derive from and those Human rights are derivative of the Bible."

    This is contradictory, if true, you would be obligated to put gay men to death.
    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

    "Dr. King did not retaliate, make fun of, protest against or anything remotely negative toward such an individual.  Dr. King did the right thing and addressed the practice or the deed.  The Bible teaches to condemn the sin not the sinner, and that's what Dr. King do so eloquently.  The issue is people don't want to hear that what they are doing might be viewed as wrong.  However, the Bible does not put a degree of severity on sin, whether its adultery, fornication, murder, theft, lying, idol worship and so on.  It's all viewed the same way.  I believe if he was asked a question on adultery or fornication, he would have responded the same way."

    Yes, I can recognize that his prejudice was based in ignorance rather than malice. To uphold them to modern standards doesn't often work with historical figures, but this is what the original post asks us to consider. Ultimately however, prejudice whether based in ignorance, or ill-intent, is still prejudice. You have convinced me that such prejudice was mild.
    Yes, I can recognize that his prejudice was based in ignorance rather than malice. What ignorance? He was a mister!

    You continually cherry-pick and don't make any effort to understand the book that are so quick to condemn.  Leviticus was under the 1st Covenant we are in what is know as the Christian age that is under the 2nd Covenant.  
    • Heb 8.5-7: They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.[1] 

      I've explained types and shadows several times, Look in v6 Christ has obtained...more excellent...covenant...than the old 

      Heb 8b-9  “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9  not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.[2] 

      In v8 we see it was told in the future, God would establish a new covenant, not like the 1st.  Who did the 1st belong to? Those who came out of land of Egypt (Moses, thus the Law of Moses).  They did not stay true to contract with God, so He no longer has concern for Israel of old.

      Heb 8.13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [3]

      This clearly shows that 1st Covenant, the law of Moses, The Old Testament Law was made obsolete, it has vanished away, no long have to follow the requirements of the Old Testament.

      Hey 9.11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)...v15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. [4]
    • v11 Christ is now a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, v15 the "he" is Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, God has always required a sacrifice of blood to seal/sign a covenant. So Christ when he hung on the cross and die, his blood was shed and ratified the new covenant. I hope you can clearly see that Christ (a shadow of Moses) made a new covenant with God. Since the day of Christ death the Old Testament was done away with and left for learning so that we could learn from the mistakes of Israel of old.  However, we do not observe the Old Testament Law we now live under the New Testament Law which starts at the book of Mathew. 

    • Leviticus 20:13 is under the old law, it is a type (the stoning) of sin (shadow) for homosexual acts. The proper verse for the prohibition of the practice is Roman 1.24-30. 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10
    • Rom 1.24-30 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.[5]
    • Now if you're going to say, it doesn't exactly say homosexuality, look at the next two verses.

    •  1Co 6:9  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [6]
    • 1Ti 1:10  the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,[7]
    • Now none of the passages say to take a person out of town and stone them to death, again, the death in Lev 20.13 represent a spiritual death under the New Testament Law.
    Yes, I can recognize that his prejudice was based in ignorance rather than malice. To uphold them to modern standards doesn't often work with historical figures, but this is what the original post asks us to consider. Ultimately however, prejudice whether based in ignorance, or ill-intent, is still prejudice. You have convinced me that such prejudice was mild.
    • Who gets to redefine standards?  Read backup there in Hebrews, that's why Israel was done away with.  They did not hold to God's Law.
    • Or is not prejudice when condemning a Christian for their beliefs?  Is that Christian-phobia?

    [1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:5–7.) Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:8–9.) Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:13.) Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 9:11,15.) Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Rom 1:12-30.) Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [6] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Co 6:9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 1:10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

  • edited March 31
    @Vaulk

    Dr. King,
    "Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."

    You say,
    Actually, this is where you're wrong.  Dr. King instructed the young Man in his article that the young man's attraction to boys instead of girls was "A problem", more specifically "A problem that would require psychiatric treatment".  This does not in any way, shape or form equate "Condemning the sin not the sinner".  There's certainly nothing positive or even neutral about telling someone that they're personal preference and natural physical attraction to members of the same sex is a problem for a Psychiatrist to fix.  While I would agree that the connotation wasn't egregiously negative...it was negative none-the-less and certainly wasn't directed at the actions of the young Man but instead his desires.  Feeling an attraction to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex is not an action.

    Yes, Dr King condemns the sin by not agreeing with young man, Dr King says "Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem" 

    Then he offers a way in which the young man can repent(stop doing) of the sin by "In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist"  

    Then he reenforces that the young man is on the right path because he confess he had a problem that was not right "You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it."

    Let's look at an example of how Jesus dealt with correcting sin.  We'll look at what is know and the woman at the well.

    Joh 4:7-29  A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?  Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock."  Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water." Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true." The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he." Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, "What do you seek?" or, "Why are you talking with her?" So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"


    Now, if you read through the account, Christ never pointedly calls out anything.  Notice how he gets the woman to confess she's a harlot, he indirectly ask where her husband was (even though he new the truth), she admitted to not having none, he tells her she is correct because you have 5 husbands, and the man she was sleeping with now was not one of the five. At the beginning instead of telling her, that he was the Christ and to follow him, he ask for a drink of water.  Note how she is shocked, not because he is Jesus, but Jews despised Samaritans because they were of Jewish dissent but worshiped idols and would normally refused to associate with them. They were treated like 3rd class people. 

    Again notice how smoothly he points out her idol worship. He did not yell "You Sinner", no he once again indirectly points out her wrong doings "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  

    First clause - You worship what you do not know, (in other words, false gods, idol worship)

    Second clause - we worship what we know, (him and his companions worship Jehovah)

    Third clause: for salvation is from the Jews, (He's telling her that the Jews will receive salvation, not the idol worship Samaritans)

    Notice also that his disciples were amazed, why?, because they had been struggling to understand what Jesus had been teaching them. Yet here is a woman who does not know who he is, and she gets what he is saying.  So much, that she goes running into town yelling that the she may have met the Christ.  

    Dr King IMO handled the situation with the young man very much in the same. You can condemn the sin without be pointed and direct. Sometime, it only take a subtle hint for someone to know they have done wrong.  

  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    edited March 31
    @with_all_humility

    Your point is very well taken and to clarify I don't think that MLK was wrong for what he did.  I apologize if my point was lost here in the debate.  The point of this debate is not to prove that MLK is an example of people who need to have their statues torn down...instead the point is to show that (While they might have some concerning behaviors) people who are accredited with major accomplishments throughout their life should be remembered.

    The point is essentially, MLK made it clear that the "Desire" (Not the action) to be with someone of the same sex was "A problem".  This equates to MLK labeling homosexuality a problem to be treated by a psychiatrist.  But no one's calling for his statues to be torn down...and rightfully so.  But if we were to apply the same logic that some in the liberal zone are using to justify the tearing down of statues that represent historical figures...we'd have to tear down MLK's statues too.

    To clarify further though, I contend that you are in fact incorrect.  MLK does not address any action (Sin) in his response to the young man in the Article.  The young man confessed a desire, not an action.  What you feel inside is not an action, a sexual desire is not a sexual act, physical attraction does not equate romantic behavior.  So no, MLK did not condemn the actions of the young Man in this article, he condemned his feelings instead.  Feeling drawn to Men instead of Women isn't an ideology or thought process, and in order to speak against it...you'd have to target the person's character.  Feeling a certain way about something has to do with your character, not your actions.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • edited March 31
    @Vaulk

    No worries, and you are absolutely right in saying 'The point of this debate is not to prove that MLK is an example of people who need to have their statues torn down...instead the point is to show that (While they might have some concerning behaviors) people who are accredited with major accomplishments throughout their life should be remembered."

    Yes, no one is perfect we all have flaws.  We need to seek to find the good in each other, versus putting each other under the microscope and then taking issue with one another.  

    We live in an error that if a baker refuses to bake a cake he has to go before SCOTUS, but if a coffee shop in Oakland, CA refuses to serve law enforcement officer because it might offend one of there patrons. That's OK

    If Trump does not react fast enough and denounce David Duke he a racist, but if Obama and 1/2 dozen black congressmen have ties to Louis Farrakhan that's OK.  Sorry for ranting, I agree, remember them for their accomplishments. Don't be a hater! 

    Keep up the good job!
  • I find that it would be in bad taste to remove an MLK statue. While I understand the argument that is trying to be made on OP's behalf. I believe that the message MLK represented far outweighs the personal beliefs he may have held behind closed doors. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, there only seems to be an issue when individuals act on those beliefs in order to put down or humiliate another. MLK's message is still very relevant to this day, saying that it is not is akin to saying the messages the Bible held are not relevant to this day and age as it is an "outdated" text.
  • I believe that if liberals are to be taken seriously, they should demand the removal of MLK statues.
    with_all_humilitySonofason
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    We shouldn’t. Nor should we take down confederate statues. First off, its history, second off, for a lot of southerners, its heritage.
    The heritage is built on hate. The majority of the statues were built between the 1890's to 1910's and some in the 1950's to 1960's. 

    "But the monuments also implicitly symbolized slavery and white violence, the experts said. "'The fact that they were placed on the grounds of county and state courthouses was intentional,' she added. 'The message: white men are in charge.'" http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/

    This is not to mention that they were rebels against the US. Also, Robert E. Lee was against having statues. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments

    To sum it up, the Confederates were rebels, Robert E. Lee was against having statues, and the statues were built to intimidate and for racism. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • We shouldn't take them down, its our history and we should remember it and that goes for all statues 
    Sonofason
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 44 Pts
    When talking about removal of mementos, such as statues, the question I like to ask rhetorically is this: "What message does the specific memento convey?" For example, in Washington DC we have the Lincoln Memorial. We know that Lincoln has partially relied on slaves in his everyday work. However, the memorial itself is a testament to equality and human rights, and it conveys the message (among others): "Slavery will have no place in this country". Since this is what the memorial signifies, even if there exist historical objections to that significance, I don't think its presence does much harm.

    MLK may have been against LGBT rights, but his stance on LGBT rights is not what his statues aim to celebrate. His statues are mostly about a) his stance against racism, and b) his advocacy for political activism; both are values that have a tremendous support in the American society. In this regard, his statues reflect the proclaimed values the society as a whole stands for.

    My personal stance on the statues, however, is that they should not be built in the first place. You see, statues commemorate individuals, promoting personality cults. I think they should, rather, commemorate raw ideas, and the personal factor should be removed from them. Instead of having a statue of MLK standing on the central square in a given town, why not instead make an artwork celebrating the racial equality and the importance of activism in themselves? I think that would be a more consistent approach, and then the discussion of "Should we remove Confederate and other statues?" will shift into "Are these values deserving of being commemorated by public mementos?", which is more directly related to the essence of this discussion.
  • SonofasonSonofason 68 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    No. The thought process behind taking down statues of people who have done negative things is not a simplistic binary process of "Has this person done anything wrong ever: yes./no" but rather a contextual assessment of their overall activities. I think most people will think holding homophobic opinions which he didn't seem to act on or make a big show of doesn't overshadow his work on the civil rights movement.
    Perhaps such an analysis is better left to homosexuals.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch