Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Not a Good Man!

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Martin Luther King’s statement that a person should be judged by his character not the color of his skin is a majestic thought. I will do that as I look at King, and I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will do the same? Maybe some “conservatives“ should also do likewise!

In my lengthy report (from which this column is taken) I look at the whole man and all the circumstances that made him what he was: The Person, the Preacher, the Politician, the Party, the Plagiarist, the Prevaricator, and the Philanderer, and the Protectors. To be fair, balanced, and accurate we must look at every facet of his life. Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?

Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” Neuhaus is a well-known liberal theologian and writer. My research also indicates that King was a drunk, plagiarist, bisexual, and Marxist. Try to remember that we are not concerned with his race or complexion, but his character.

If you read my King report with his name substituted with another, maybe Bill King, most decent, honest people would be repulsed and disgusted. Why not the same reaction with King?

If we were looking at David Duke and did not deal with his past involvement with the Nazi movement, I would be accused of bias or poor research. In the interest of truth am I not required to do the same with King? If not, then why is he exempt from a careful, honest look at his past to make a decision about him in the present? If I am wrong, please correct me.

No person deserves to be called a journalist if he refuses to look at both sides of an issue or if he/she refuses to give proper weight to all arguments because of prejudice. If a writer is fearful of where the truth will lead him, he should be selling insurance.

During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I asked the editor if I could do a column on King’s plagiarism, however, I never got permission. I had read the story of King’s thievery in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips from the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. The Wall Street Journal broke the story a couple of months later although they did so gingerly.

It is noteworthy that the American media was then forced to deal with King’s plagiarism, but even then they defended him! One main defense was that it was a “black thing,” which was an insult to honest, decent Blacks. When you quote King you don’t know whom you are quoting!

Why is there little debate in the King controversy? During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, the editor would not permit me to do a column on King although every year in early January, they always did a page dealing with him. I have one issue that has five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere.

Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus numerous one night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual having been heard during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. King was also caught running naked after a woman down a Norway hotel hallway during his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize! The night before he was killed he spent the night with two women and fought with a third, according to his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. If a man will not keep his marriage vows, he is not worthy to walk my dog.

According to the Bible, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His virgin birth and his physical resurrection so according to II John he should not be honored; instead no one should “bid him God speed.” Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, ever seeking to get lost men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Never happened because he did not believe that was essential.

King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani and assorted Republicans was a man without character, and informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.

While I was a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, a member introduced a bill to memorialize King before we had his national holiday forced upon us. The memorialization meant nothing since we did them almost every day as routine.

When the King vote came up (it was a voice vote since it was no big deal) mine was the only negative vote out of a hundred. No one in the senate voted no. I wondered where all the conservatives were. Soon they surrounded saying that they should have voted with me but didn’t think it was worth the flack. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!

The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak to the issue and demand a recorded vote but did not do so. Why? I don’t know. Some might say it was peer pressure. My conservative friends told me, “Don, it won’t do any good and could hinder your chances of getting your bills even assigned to committee.” It was the only time I did not follow my principles while in office.

King does not deserve a national holiday but instead he should be exposed as a fraud, a fake, and a fool, and I would feel the same about a white conservative! As for celebrating January 15, I will do so since it is my birthday!

Copyright 2005 Don Boys

P.O. Box 944

Ringgold, GA 30736

706 965 5930

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years His book, ISLAM: America‘s Trojan Horse! was published last year. His website is cstnews.com.)

-- Permission is given for this column to be republished, reposted, or emailed providing that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Don’s web site address is included.

Please visit Don’s web site at

www.cstnews.com

. --

Postscript:

Stanford maintains a web archive of writings by Michael [Martin] Luther King. These writings show that Mike King clearly rejected the divinity of Christ. The following paper was presented by King in 1949 and was entitled, “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection“. Whether King actually wrote the following words or simply stole them from another source and claimed them as his own, I do not know. But the following words state clearly that the early Church invented the deity of Christ -----



“The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim [?] of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?“

“We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him. We must remember that the Logos concept had its origin in Greek thought. It would [sic] only natural that the early Christians, after coming in contact with the Greeks would be influenced by their thought.“

“But by no means can we designate this as the only clue to the rise of this doctrine. Saint Paul and the early church followers could have never come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine if there had not been some uniqueness in the personality of the historical Jesus. What Jesus brought into life was a new personality and those who came under {its} spell were more and more convinced that he with whom they had walked and talked in Galilee could be nothing less than a divine person. To the earliest Christians this breath-taking conviction was not the conclusion of an argument, but the inescapable solution of a problem. Who was this Jesus? They saw that Jesus could not merely be explained in terms of the psychological mood of the age in which he lived, for such explaination failed to answer another inescapable question: Why did Jesus differ from many others in the same setting? And so the early Christians answered this question by saying that he was the divine son of God. As Hedley laconically states, “the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.“[Footnote:] Hedley, op. cit., p. 37. The Church called Jesus divine because they had found God in him. They could only identify him with the highest and best in the universe. It was this great experience with the historical Jesus that led the early Christians to see him as the divine son of God.“

Edit