RSS feed

Justice

previous next

Justice is when each person or group is given what is due them based on their intentions, efforts, or effects on the world. When one does good in the world, goodness returns to the doer. When one does harm, the harm returns also to the one who caused it. The fruits of creativity and industry are harvested proportionally by the persons who brought them into being.


Though perfect justice is impossible, we embody the virtue of justice when we seek to treat every individual with fairness and equality. Since we all are prone to bias and prejudice, we can approximate justice only by rigorously safeguarding against these. Because we value justice so deeply, every human community puts into place rules and processes that attempt to ensure justice or equity among members.

Justice

Photo: David Lat, United States

Sort by: Newest First | Rating
Acceptance - Fairness - Wisdom - Justice
A Letter Concerning Toleration
Religious tolerance and the domains of religious vs. civil institutions.
...I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. [snip] The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth. The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like. It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights. [snip] In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that they have framed of things. [see link for complete text]

A Letter Concerning Toleration

...I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. For it is impossible that those should sincerely and heartily apply themselves to make other people Christians, who have not really embraced the Christian religion in their own hearts. If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love. [snip] The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth. The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests. Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like. It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights. [snip] In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that they have framed of things. [see link for complete text]
Source type: Website
Wikisource
John Locke
"A Letter Concerning Toleration"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration
Viewed on February 4, 2010
Contribution #3816

Source (click to close)

Source type: Website
Wikisource
John Locke
"A Letter Concerning Toleration"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration
Viewed on February 4, 2010
Contribution #3816


Compassion - Faith - Justice
Where is my church?
Looking for God amid the debris of faith.
I grew up in a Southern fundamentalist preacher’s family, and as a 13-year-old declared that God had called me to be a preacher. But then, decades ago, I decided that I couldn’t possibly be a Christian if being a Christian meant being intolerant, bigoted, and hypocritical, if it meant being unconcerned about poverty and racism, disdaining the protection of God’s creation, and worshipping massive, organized violence in defense of a bloated and unjust empire.

Now, I find myself looking back on my life, wondering if it was Christianity I opposed, or merely the behavior and practice of people who claimed to be Christians. The most powerful story in the Bible, threaded throughout, is the story of a God who hears the cry of the oppressed, of the poor, of the enslaved, of the left-out and the down-and-out, and who delivers them from bondage and from evil.

Is God too big to be comprehended by any religion? Does the hypocrisy of Christians excuse me from following the teachings and the way of Jesus? Is the church a sanctimonious gathering, or a union of the human and the divine, the body of God in the world? Where is my church?

Where is my church?

I grew up in a Southern fundamentalist preacher’s family, and as a 13-year-old declared that God had called me to be a preacher. But then, decades ago, I decided that I couldn’t possibly be a Christian if being a Christian meant being intolerant, bigoted, and hypocritical, if it meant being unconcerned about poverty and racism, disdaining the protection of God’s creation, and worshipping massive, organized violence in defense of a bloated and unjust empire.

Now, I find myself looking back on my life, wondering if it was Christianity I opposed, or merely the behavior and practice of people who claimed to be Christians. The most powerful story in the Bible, threaded throughout, is the story of a God who hears the cry of the oppressed, of the poor, of the enslaved, of the left-out and the down-and-out, and who delivers them from bondage and from evil.

Is God too big to be comprehended by any religion? Does the hypocrisy of Christians excuse me from following the teachings and the way of Jesus? Is the church a sanctimonious gathering, or a union of the human and the divine, the body of God in the world? Where is my church?
No source entered for Contribution #3187

Source (click to close)

No source entered for Contribution #3187


Honor - Independence - Knowledge - Responsibility - Citizenship - Justice
United Nations Declaration on Human Rights
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948


PREAMBLE

    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    Article 1.

      All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2.

      Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3.

      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4.

      No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    Article 5.

      No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 6.

      Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

    Article 7.

      All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

    Article 8.

      Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

    Article 9.

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

    Article 10.

      Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

    Article 11.

      (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

      (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    Article 12.

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Article 13.

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

      (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    Article 14.

      (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

      (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Article 15.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

    Article 16.

      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Article 17.

      (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Article 18.

      Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    Article 19.

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Article 20.

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

      (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    Article 21.

      (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

      (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

      (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    Article 22.

      Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    Article 23.

      (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

      (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

      (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

      (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

    Article 24.

      Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

    Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Article 26.

      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    Article 27.

      (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

    Article 28.

      Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

    Article 29.

      (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

      (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    Article 30.

      Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.



    United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948


    PREAMBLE

      Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

      Article 1.

        All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

      Article 2.

        Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

      Article 3.

        Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

      Article 4.

        No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

      Article 5.

        No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

      Article 6.

        Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

      Article 7.

        All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

      Article 8.

        Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

      Article 9.

        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

      Article 10.

        Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

      Article 11.

        (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

        (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

      Article 12.

        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

      Article 13.

        (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

        (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

      Article 14.

        (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

        (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Article 15.

        (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

        (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

      Article 16.

        (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

        (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

        (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      Article 17.

        (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

        (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

      Article 18.

        Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

      Article 19.

        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      Article 20.

        (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

        (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

      Article 21.

        (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

        (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

        (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

      Article 22.

        Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

      Article 23.

        (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

        (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

        (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

        (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

      Article 24.

        Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

      Article 25.

        (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

        (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

      Article 26.

        (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

        (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

        (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

      Article 27.

        (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

        (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

      Article 28.

        Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

      Article 29.

        (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

        (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

        (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Article 30.

        Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.



      Source type: Website
      United Nations General Assembly, 1948
      http://un.org/Overview/rights.html
      Viewed on December 8, 2008
      Contribution #2795

      Source (click to close)

      Source type: Website
      United Nations General Assembly, 1948
      http://un.org/Overview/rights.html
      Viewed on December 8, 2008
      Contribution #2795


      Love - Justice
      excerpt from Passion for Justice

      Love, like truth and beauty, is concrete. Love is not fundamentally a sweet feeling; not, at heart, a matter of sentiment, attachment, or being "drawn toward." Love is active, effective, a matter of making reciprocal and mutually beneficial relation with one's friends and enemies.

      Love creates righteousness, or justice, here on earth. To make love is to make justice. As advocates and activists for justice know, loving involves struggle, resistance, risk. People working today on behalf of women, blacks, lesbians and gay men, the aging, the poor in this country and elsewhere know that making justice is not a warm, fuzzy experience. I think also that sexual lovers and good friends know that the most compelling relationships demand hard work, patience, and a willingness to endure tensions and anxiety in creating mutually empowering bonds.

      For this reason loving involves commitment. We are not automatic lovers of self, others, world, or God. Love does not just happen. We are not love machines, puppets on the strings of a deity called "love." Love is a choice -- not simply, or necessarily, a rational choice, but rather a willingness to be present to others without pretense or guile. Love is a conversion to humanity -- a willingness to participate with others in the healing of a broken world and broken lives. Love is the choice to experience life as a member of the human family, a partner in the dance of life, rather than as an alien in the world or as a deity above the world, aloof and apart from human flesh.

      excerpt from Passion for Justice

      Love, like truth and beauty, is concrete. Love is not fundamentally a sweet feeling; not, at heart, a matter of sentiment, attachment, or being "drawn toward." Love is active, effective, a matter of making reciprocal and mutually beneficial relation with one's friends and enemies.

      Love creates righteousness, or justice, here on earth. To make love is to make justice. As advocates and activists for justice know, loving involves struggle, resistance, risk. People working today on behalf of women, blacks, lesbians and gay men, the aging, the poor in this country and elsewhere know that making justice is not a warm, fuzzy experience. I think also that sexual lovers and good friends know that the most compelling relationships demand hard work, patience, and a willingness to endure tensions and anxiety in creating mutually empowering bonds.

      For this reason loving involves commitment. We are not automatic lovers of self, others, world, or God. Love does not just happen. We are not love machines, puppets on the strings of a deity called "love." Love is a choice -- not simply, or necessarily, a rational choice, but rather a willingness to be present to others without pretense or guile. Love is a conversion to humanity -- a willingness to participate with others in the healing of a broken world and broken lives. Love is the choice to experience life as a member of the human family, a partner in the dance of life, rather than as an alien in the world or as a deity above the world, aloof and apart from human flesh.

      Source type: Book
      Passion for Justice
      http://
      Contribution #2566

      Source (click to close)

      Source type: Book
      Passion for Justice
      http://
      Contribution #2566


      Balance - Mercy - Justice
      Justice vs. Mercy
      The dilemma of justice vs. mercy is a classic instance of the two-truth paradox found so prominently in Shakespeare’s plays and poems. While it is true that the enforcement of just laws maintains orderly rule and decorum in a civil society, it is also true that rigorous strictures and harsh constraints unfeelingly applied ignore our natural human fallibility, which pleads guilty yet begs pardon and forgiveness.

      Mercy, then, seeks not to supplant justice but to qualify, leaven, or season stringent enforcement of the law. Such equilibrium, however, is difficult to maintain, for while justice overdone is rigor, so mercy overdone is permissiveness: severity and lenity represent the dark sides of each virtue to be avoided. The human capacity to avoid either extreme would define “wisdom.”

      Just such wisdom appears be the quest of both Duke Vincentio in Measure for Measure and Portia in The Merchant of Venice, both of whom prevail in their respective plays by demonstrating the principle of generous clemency; yet neither character avoids criticism, the one for pardoning Vienna’s malefactors too prodigally, and the other for executing an overly ‘severe mercy’ on Shylock.

      Justice vs. Mercy

      The dilemma of justice vs. mercy is a classic instance of the two-truth paradox found so prominently in Shakespeare’s plays and poems. While it is true that the enforcement of just laws maintains orderly rule and decorum in a civil society, it is also true that rigorous strictures and harsh constraints unfeelingly applied ignore our natural human fallibility, which pleads guilty yet begs pardon and forgiveness.

      Mercy, then, seeks not to supplant justice but to qualify, leaven, or season stringent enforcement of the law. Such equilibrium, however, is difficult to maintain, for while justice overdone is rigor, so mercy overdone is permissiveness: severity and lenity represent the dark sides of each virtue to be avoided. The human capacity to avoid either extreme would define “wisdom.”

      Just such wisdom appears be the quest of both Duke Vincentio in Measure for Measure and Portia in The Merchant of Venice, both of whom prevail in their respective plays by demonstrating the principle of generous clemency; yet neither character avoids criticism, the one for pardoning Vienna’s malefactors too prodigally, and the other for executing an overly ‘severe mercy’ on Shylock.

      Source type: Website
      Alan Nordstrom
      "Alan Nordstrom's Blog - Sunday, October 26, 2008"
      http://alan-nordstrom.blogspot.com/
      Viewed on November 9, 2008
      Contribution #2549

      Source (click to close)

      Source type: Website
      Alan Nordstrom
      "Alan Nordstrom's Blog - Sunday, October 26, 2008"
      http://alan-nordstrom.blogspot.com/
      Viewed on November 9, 2008
      Contribution #2549


      Citizenship - Justice - Universal Ethics
      The theory of free speech, that truth is so much larger and stranger and more many-sided than we know of, that it is very much better at all costs to hear everyone's account of it, is a theory which has been justified on the whole by experiment, but which remains a very daring and even a very surprising theory.
      It is really one of the great discoveries of the modern time.

      The theory of free speech, that truth is so much larger and stranger and more many-sided than we know of, that it is very much better at all costs to hear everyone's account of it, is a theory which has been justified on the whole by experiment, but which remains a very daring and even a very surprising theory.
      It is really one of the great discoveries of the modern time.
      No source entered for Contribution #2118

      Source (click to close)

      No source entered for Contribution #2118


      Fairness - Justice - Universal Ethics
      Monkey Equity -- an excerpt from Hardwired Behavior
      Tancredo describes research showing that brown capuchin monkeys exhibit a sense of equity, and females react to events they perceive as unfair. 
      Another interesting gauge of the innateness of a moral sense comes from recent discoveries about primates.  We have known since the 1990's that chimpanzees possess reciprocal altruism (generosity with food and sharing, for example) that is essential for achieving social status.  Along with this, they have also been shown to have a sense of righteousness and justice, abilities that are thought increasingly to be precursors of human morality.(33) But recently researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Center in Atlanta looked at "fairness" based on aversion to inequity and concluded that a critical feature of human cooperation involves comparing one's own efforts and rewards (payoffs) with others. (34)  This, they presume, is a human universal.  However, other animals are cooperative; therefore, inequity aversion is most likely not limited to humans.

      The researchers studied how brown capuchin monkeys (five males and five females) respond to unequal rewards when compared with others in their group.  In this eperiment these monkeys were given tokens to be exchanged with an experimenter for a reward.  When monkeys exchanged okens for a slice of cucumber, which is an acceptable reward, there were no problems.  However, if one monkey received a cucumber for a token and another a grape--which has been shown to be a preferred treat at least 90% of the time by these monkeys (35) -- the response was different.

      The researchers noted that the males, for no clearly discernible reason, showed little or no difference in response when a favored food item was given to one of them, whereas the females, observing another receiving the desired food item for equal effort, reacted by rejecting the offer.  They were more tuned into issues of fairness.  This rejection took the form of failing to surrender the token and pay for the food, or of accepting the slice of cucumber but refusing to eat it.  If one of the female monkeys was given the grape for no effort, the others would react even more hostilely.  Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that these monkeys have an innate sense of equality and fairness, (36) and that this capacity, which is essential for cooperation, may have evolved in social primates before it did in humans. (37)

      Monkey Equity -- an excerpt from Hardwired Behavior

      Another interesting gauge of the innateness of a moral sense comes from recent discoveries about primates.  We have known since the 1990's that chimpanzees possess reciprocal altruism (generosity with food and sharing, for example) that is essential for achieving social status.  Along with this, they have also been shown to have a sense of righteousness and justice, abilities that are thought increasingly to be precursors of human morality.(33) But recently researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Center in Atlanta looked at "fairness" based on aversion to inequity and concluded that a critical feature of human cooperation involves comparing one's own efforts and rewards (payoffs) with others. (34)  This, they presume, is a human universal.  However, other animals are cooperative; therefore, inequity aversion is most likely not limited to humans.

      The researchers studied how brown capuchin monkeys (five males and five females) respond to unequal rewards when compared with others in their group.  In this eperiment these monkeys were given tokens to be exchanged with an experimenter for a reward.  When monkeys exchanged okens for a slice of cucumber, which is an acceptable reward, there were no problems.  However, if one monkey received a cucumber for a token and another a grape--which has been shown to be a preferred treat at least 90% of the time by these monkeys (35) -- the response was different.

      The researchers noted that the males, for no clearly discernible reason, showed little or no difference in response when a favored food item was given to one of them, whereas the females, observing another receiving the desired food item for equal effort, reacted by rejecting the offer.  They were more tuned into issues of fairness.  This rejection took the form of failing to surrender the token and pay for the food, or of accepting the slice of cucumber but refusing to eat it.  If one of the female monkeys was given the grape for no effort, the others would react even more hostilely.  Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that these monkeys have an innate sense of equality and fairness, (36) and that this capacity, which is essential for cooperation, may have evolved in social primates before it did in humans. (37)
      Source type: Book
      Hardwired Behavior: What neuroscience reveals about morality
      by Laurence Tancredo
      Page 80-81
      Published by Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , 2005
      http://
      Contribution #1683

      Source (click to close)

      Source type: Book
      Hardwired Behavior: What neuroscience reveals about morality
      by Laurence Tancredo
      Page 80-81
      Published by Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , 2005
      http://
      Contribution #1683


      Cooperation - Ethics - Fairness - Gentleness - Justice
      The Justice of Self Existence
      A brief essay regarding the sanctity of life and the right to a peaceful existence based on the very fact that you do exist and are granted that right by your very existence. 
      Often we hear the word ‘justice’ used in many ways; the Halls of Justice, justice served, justice delayed is justice denied, dispensing justice, the scales of justice, and so forth. It can seem that justice is a double-edged sword. It demands reparation as repayment and by doing so, tends to make ‘two wrongs a right’. In other words, if someone grieves another, then both should suffer to satisfy justice: the offended as the victim, the offender as the punished. Justice is based on fairness, which stems from value and work. It takes work to bring life into the world and something that takes that life away is deemed unjust. As social animals, we value our collectiveness and acts that diminish our collectiveness are acts against Nature itself. Hence, when someone steals something another person worked hard to acquire, that person’s value and work is diminished and the natural order is violated. There is a philosophy in Shinto and Aikido: I exist, therefore I have a right to exist. Mine is the right to walk through this life without being violated because to violate another is to violate the very Universe itself. If I violate Universal Laws, a weakness or vulnerability is created in me, a disharmony with Nature which can potentially be exploited. Therefore, it is best to live harmoniously with all that is in Nature, the trees, the seasons, my community, my family and friends, the environment, so that little or no disharmony exists. When it does, Nature administers justice, and then balance and harmony are restored. Justice seems to invoke the Hindu concept of ‘Karma’ which states that all deeds in this life create past, present and future events or consequences, so an individual has to accept responsibility for his/her actions. Karma incorporates the idea of individual free will, the ability to choose ones course of action and its attendant and eternal consequences. I’ll not forget the words my Professor of Greek used to say, “Salt your words because you just might have to eat them”. Justice dovetails nicely with Universal principles which have found wonderful forms of expression in human traditions and shared common wisdom.
      Mark Mythos

      The Justice of Self Existence

      Often we hear the word ‘justice’ used in many ways; the Halls of Justice, justice served, justice delayed is justice denied, dispensing justice, the scales of justice, and so forth. It can seem that justice is a double-edged sword. It demands reparation as repayment and by doing so, tends to make ‘two wrongs a right’. In other words, if someone grieves another, then both should suffer to satisfy justice: the offended as the victim, the offender as the punished. Justice is based on fairness, which stems from value and work. It takes work to bring life into the world and something that takes that life away is deemed unjust. As social animals, we value our collectiveness and acts that diminish our collectiveness are acts against Nature itself. Hence, when someone steals something another person worked hard to acquire, that person’s value and work is diminished and the natural order is violated. There is a philosophy in Shinto and Aikido: I exist, therefore I have a right to exist. Mine is the right to walk through this life without being violated because to violate another is to violate the very Universe itself. If I violate Universal Laws, a weakness or vulnerability is created in me, a disharmony with Nature which can potentially be exploited. Therefore, it is best to live harmoniously with all that is in Nature, the trees, the seasons, my community, my family and friends, the environment, so that little or no disharmony exists. When it does, Nature administers justice, and then balance and harmony are restored. Justice seems to invoke the Hindu concept of ‘Karma’ which states that all deeds in this life create past, present and future events or consequences, so an individual has to accept responsibility for his/her actions. Karma incorporates the idea of individual free will, the ability to choose ones course of action and its attendant and eternal consequences. I’ll not forget the words my Professor of Greek used to say, “Salt your words because you just might have to eat them”. Justice dovetails nicely with Universal principles which have found wonderful forms of expression in human traditions and shared common wisdom.
      Mark Mythos
      No source entered for Contribution #1242

      Source (click to close)

      No source entered for Contribution #1242


      Justice
      Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Part 1

      MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
      While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

      I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

      But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

      Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

      You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

      In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

      Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

      As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

      Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

      You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

      The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

      One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

      Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Part 1

      MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
      While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

      I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

      But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

      Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

      You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

      In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

      Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

      As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

      Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

      You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

      The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

      One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

      Source type: Website
      Martin Luther King Jr.
      Contribution #804

      Source (click to close)

      Source type: Website
      Martin Luther King Jr.
      Contribution #804