Civil Disobedience: Martin Luther King's Lawful Legacy

Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the most celebrated orators and moral visionaries in American history. His famous I Have a Dream speech, delivered in Washington, D.C., in 1963, expressed his dream that his children would one day be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. However, King's legacy extends beyond this iconic speech. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King provides profound insights into the complex relationship between law, morality, and social justice. This letter, written while King was imprisoned for his participation in a march against racial segregation, offers a nuanced perspective on civil disobedience and the distinction between just and unjust laws. King's evolving views on nonviolence and his recognition of the validity of violence as a form of protest in the latter part of his life add further complexity to his stance on breaking the law.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'

In April 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, after he defied a state court's injunction and led a march of Black protesters without a permit, urging an Easter boycott of white-owned stores. In response to a statement published in The Birmingham News by eight moderate white clergymen, which criticised the march and demonstrations, King wrote a lengthy response, which became known as his "Letter from Birmingham Jail".

In his letter, King addressed the clergymen's criticisms and explained his reasons for breaking the law. He acknowledged the gravity of choosing to break the law, even for a just cause, but defended his actions by distinguishing between just and unjust laws.

King defined a just law as "a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God", while an unjust law is "a code that is out of harmony with the moral law". He argued that one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws but also a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, citing St. Augustine's teaching that "an unjust law is no law at all".

King gave several examples to illustrate the difference between just and unjust laws. He explained that an unjust law is one that a majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. In contrast, a just law is one that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself.

King also addressed the charge that his nonviolent actions precipitated violence, likening it to the irrationality of condemning a robbery victim for possessing money that attracted the evil act of robbery. He further emphasised that those who call themselves followers of Jesus are called to witness to his kingdom of justice and, thus, will be a disruptive presence in an unjust world.

King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is a powerful example of his commitment to nonviolence, his thirst for justice, and his belief in the solidarity of all humankind. It serves as a reminder that the struggle for racial equality required not only legal and legislative changes but also organised social action and the transformation of hearts and minds.

The difference between just and unjust laws

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and a leader of the American civil rights movement. In April 1963, he was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, for participating in a march against the city's racial segregation. While in jail, he wrote a letter, titled "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he discussed the difference between just and unjust laws.

In his letter, King acknowledges the importance of obeying just laws, stating that individuals have a moral and legal responsibility to do so. However, he also emphasizes that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He defines a just law as a "man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God", while an unjust law is one that is "out of harmony with the moral law." In other words, a just law aligns with universal principles of morality, while an unjust law contradicts them.

King provides further clarification by invoking the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, who stated that an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. King also agrees with St. Augustine's teaching that "an unjust law is no law at all." He emphasizes that any law that degrades or uplifts human personality is unjust, as it goes against the inherent dignity of all people.

King gives a concrete example to illustrate his point. He mentions that an unjust law is one that a majority group compels a minority group to obey, without being willing to follow it themselves. In contrast, a just law is one that a majority enforces on a minority and is willing to abide by themselves, thus creating sameness and equality before the law.

King also addresses the situation where a law may be just in its essence but unjust in its application. For instance, he mentions that there is nothing inherently wrong with requiring a permit for a parade or protest. However, when such an ordinance is used to maintain segregation and deny citizens their right to peaceful assembly and protest, it becomes unjust.

In conclusion, Martin Luther King Jr.'s distinction between just and unjust laws revolves around their alignment with moral law or the law of God. Just laws uphold the dignity and equality of all people, while unjust laws degrade and discriminate. King's ideas on civil disobedience and the distinction between just and unjust laws have had a significant impact on the civil rights movement and continue to influence social and political discourse today.

Civil disobedience

King's views on civil disobedience were shaped by his Christian faith and his belief in nonviolent resistance. In his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," written in 1963, King outlined his thoughts on just and unjust laws. He argued that there are two types of laws: just laws, which align with moral or divine law, and unjust laws, which contradict moral or divine law. King asserted that individuals have a moral responsibility to obey just laws but also a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He believed that segregation laws were inherently unjust and, therefore, justified civil disobedience as a means to challenge racial injustice.

King's concept of civil disobedience was influenced by Christian theology and the philosophical tradition. He drew upon the ideas of St. Augustine, who stated that "an unjust law is no law at all," and St. Thomas Aquinas, who distinguished between just and unjust laws based on their harmony with moral or divine law. King also recognized the potential consequences of breaking the law, even for a just cause, and emphasized that civil disobedience should be exercised with caution and a willingness to accept the penalty.

King's advocacy for civil disobedience extended beyond racial equality. He believed that individuals had a duty to challenge any unjust law, regardless of its nature. He understood that civil disobedience could be a powerful tool to address social and political injustices and encourage dialogue and negotiation.

However, by the end of his life, King's views on nonviolence and civil disobedience had evolved. He recognized the growing frustration and anger within the black community, particularly among the younger generation, and their willingness to resort to violent resistance. While King never fully embraced violent protest, he acknowledged the necessity of riots as a form of social protest and a means for the oppressed to express their discontent.

The role of the church

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister and a leader of the American civil rights movement. He is celebrated for his acute moral vision and his oratory skills. His "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is a testament to his commitment to nonviolence, his thirst for justice, and his belief in the solidarity of all humankind.

King's views on the law can be divided into two categories: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity. He understood that unjust laws—and the courts that enforced them—were obstacles in the cause of racial justice. However, he also saw the law as an opportunity for advancing racial justice, recognising the importance of courtroom decisions and legislation in bringing about broader political and social change.

King's relationship with the church is a critical aspect of his legacy. He was the son, grandson, and great-grandson of preachers, and his faith played a pivotal role in shaping his values and activism. While he was grateful for the support of some notable clergy members, he expressed deep disappointment in the overall response of the church to the civil rights movement. He had hoped that the white religious leadership would actively support the cause of racial justice, but instead, many remained silent or even opposed the movement.

In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King wrote:

> "I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership... I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen."

King lamented the church's silence in the face of blatant injustices and its focus on an "otherworldly religion" that made a false distinction between the sacred and the secular. He believed that the church had lost its way and become an "archdefender of the status quo." He warned that if it did not recapture the sacrificial spirit of early Christianity, it would lose its authenticity and relevance.

Despite his disappointment, King remained hopeful, recognising the efforts of those noble souls from the ranks of organised religion who had joined the struggle for freedom. He concluded his letter by expressing his faith in the power of love and nonviolent protest to bring about positive change:

> "I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom."

The validity of violence

Martin Luther King Jr.'s views on the relationship between the law and social justice can be divided into two categories: law as an obstacle and law as an opportunity.

Law as an Obstacle to Racial Justice

Much of the civil rights movement was a struggle against racially discriminatory laws or racially neutral laws that segregationists used to attack civil rights activism. King was arrested on multiple occasions for violating practically every criminal code provision, including disturbing the peace, marching without a permit, violating picketing or boycott laws, trespassing, engaging in criminal libel, and conspiracy.

King often struggled to explain why he believed civil rights activists were justified in breaking certain laws while also condemning segregationists for their defiance of federal civil rights requirements. In his 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail", he differentiated between just and unjust laws, stating:

> "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

He argued that since segregation laws are morally wrong, civil rights activists have a moral responsibility to disobey them.

King also acknowledged that there are laws that are just on their face but unjust in their application. For example, he was arrested for parading without a permit, which he argued is not inherently wrong. However, when such an ordinance is used to preserve segregation and deny citizens their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly and protest, it becomes unjust.

Law as an Opportunity for Advancing Racial Justice

King understood that court decisions and legal reform were crucial components of broader political and social struggles. He saw the power of law as extending beyond courtroom decisions and legislation to the difficult work required to give life to basic legal principles. Judicial and legislative breakthroughs, therefore, were calls to action rather than mere moments for celebration.

While King is known for his commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience, his views on the validity of violence evolved over time. In a 1966 interview with Mike Wallace, he acknowledged that a rising group within the black community was advocating for violent resistance. He famously stated, "a riot is the language of the unheard," expressing the newfound urgency facing black people. While he hoped for nonviolence, he predicted ongoing vigorous protests in the coming summers.

By the summer of 1967, King's views seemed to have shifted further. In a speech at the American Psychological Association's annual convention, he referred to urban riots as "a special form of violence" and "a distorted form of social protest." He recognized that the looting that occurred during these riots served as a means for the most enraged and deprived individuals to take hold of consumer goods with the ease that white people typically enjoyed.

King's evolving perspective on violence can be understood in the context of the broader civil rights movement and the increasing urgency for change, especially in urban areas that were facing rampant police abuse, lack of affordable housing, and economic inequality.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s views on the validity of violence cannot be separated from his broader philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience. While he initially advocated for nonviolent resistance, he came to recognize the inevitability of riots and violence as a response to systemic injustice and oppression. His evolving perspective reflects a complex leader grappling with the limitations of nonviolence in the face of a violent and oppressive system.

Frequently asked questions