美國民權運動的時候，亦有很多人反對馬丁路德金的公民抗命，覺得他們是滋事份子。反對者當中，甚至包括其他教會的牧師，都攻擊馬丁路德金誤用了自己的牧師職位，迷惑群眾。馬丁路德金一次被捕後，寫了《從伯明翰監獄寄出的信》（Letter From Birmingham Jail），詳細討論他的運動哲學。其中有一段，他解譯了為什麼黑人們不能再等：
從痛苦的經驗中，我們知道自由從來都不是欺壓者主動給予的；自由必定是受壓迫者爭取回來的。坦白說，我從未參與過一場直接行動，在其他沒有受欺壓者看來，是「正當時候」。我聽了很多次「等待」，而這句話對每個黑人來說，都已經耳熟能詳。這種「等待」，差不多永遠等於「永不」。等待一詞，成了有鎮靜作用的沙利度胺；雖能暫時放鬆壓力，但卻會造成不幸的畸形胎兒。我們必需看清，先代法學家已經說過：「正義，延遲太久，就是拒絕。」
在美國本土，跟馬丁路德金齊名的還有一位麥爾坎Ｘ（Malcolm X）。馬丁路德金領導的是溫和路線，而麥爾坎Ｘ就領導激進路線。他的激進由名字已經看得到。他拒絕使用出生時的姓氏利托，就是因為他覺得該姓氏是白人奴隸主強取給他的袓先。既然袓先的歷史已經被歪曲到找不到源頭，那倒不如就用Ｘ做姓氏算了。
主流的泛民，包括佔中三子，每每自言師法馬丁路德金，但卻絕少提及麥爾坎Ｘ。這就已經是偏溫和的取態。雖然自從廿年前剛接觸到兩位黑人領袖的生平後，筆者一直都是絕對的溫和派，但亦不能不指出，香港沒有師法麥爾坎Ｘ，本身已經是整個社會的福份了。
當然，麥爾坎Ｘ亦非只有熱血。跟馬丁路德金一樣，他也是一流的演講家。關於他的主張，以下幾段節錄自他最著名的一篇演講。
世界上有兩類黑人，一舊一新。你們大部份都認識舊的一類。在史書裏，奴隸制度時期他們就是湯姆叔叔；他是名「屋內奴」（house negro）。奴隸制度中，有兩類黑奴：「屋內奴」跟「田野奴」（field negro）。屋內奴一般住在主人附近。他們穿的像主人；有時穿的是主人的舊衣。他們吃的是主人吃完的剩餸。還有他們住在主人的屋裏，雖然一般只是住在地庫或屋頂，但是仍然他住在主人的屋裏。所以屋內奴的意識，跟主人的意識一致。當主人說：「我們有很好的食物」，屋內奴亦說：「對，我們有很好的食物。」當主人說：「我們的家不錯」，屋內奴亦說：「對，我們的家不錯。」當主人生病時，屋內奴竟然會說：「老板，什麼事情了？我們生病嗎？」主人的痛就是他們的痛；而且主人生病，屋內奴的感受比自己生病更深。如果主人的房子發生火災，這類黑奴比主人更勇敢去滅火。但是還有另一類留在田間的黑奴。屋內奴是小數。大多數的黑奴是田野奴。當主人生病，田野奴希望他去死。如果發生火災，田野奴會祈禱，希望一陣強風將火勢蔓延。
屋內奴的言論，各位是否覺得似曾相識？
《從伯明翰監獄寄出的信》
（Letter From Birmingham Jail）
小馬丁‧路德‧金(1929－1968)生於佐治亞州亞特蘭大，祖父和父親均為浸禮會牧師。他15歲入莫爾豪斯學院專修為天資聰慧的學生開設的課程，以後在賓夕法尼亞州賈斯特的克勞澤神學院獲神學士學位，又在波斯頓大學獲哲學博士學位。金在阿拉巴馬州蒙哥馬利市的德克斯特大街浸禮會教堂任牧師時，一場對公共汽車的聯合抵制運動開始了。他領導這場鬥爭歷時一年，這使他成了全國知名人物。隨後他組織南方基督教領袖聯合會，成為迅速擴展的民權運動的領導人。
1963年，金把一場非暴力和消極抵抗運動帶到種族隔離和種族歧視嚴重的伯明罕市。在一次次抗議性的示威遊行中數百人被捕。金寧可進監獄也不服從法院關於停止示威的命令。在單獨監禁的日子裏，金對七位重要的教會人士寫的信作了答覆。他們在信中要求他取消示威運動，轉而依靠談判和法院解決問題。金用復活節週末的時間起草他的答覆。金因為領導了民權運動於1964年被授予諾貝爾和平獎。1968年當他指導田納西州孟菲斯的罷工鬥爭時遇刺身亡。
我在這伯明罕市監獄的鐵窗內閱讀你們最近的聲明，該聲明把我們當前的活動稱為「不明智而又不合時宜的。」……
既然你們已受「外界的人紛紛介入」一說的影響，我認為我應當闡明自己在伯明罕的原因。……我與我的幾名助手在伯明罕，是應邀前來的。我來伯明罕是因為我在這裏有些基本的組織關係。此外，我來伯明罕是因為這裏存在著不公正。正如八世紀的先知們離開他們的小小村落，把「上帝是這麼說的」一話傳到遠離他們故鄉的地方，正如使徒保羅離開他在塔爾蘇斯的小村，把耶穌基督的福音帶到希臘─羅馬世界的幾乎每一村莊和城市，我也被迫把自由的福音帶到我自己故鄉以外的地方。……任何一個地方的不公正是對一切地方的公正的威脅。……
你們對目前正在伯明罕舉行的遊行示威感到痛心。但是我很遺憾，你們的聲明竟沒有對引起示威的客觀形勢表述同樣的關切。我相信你們每個人都不願緊跟在淺薄的社會分析家腳後，只看後果而不去設法解決根本原因。我會毫不猶豫地說，眼下在伯明罕發生所謂的示威遊行是不幸的事。但是我想更強調一點：該市白人政權逼得黑人居民走投無路，沒有別的選擇。
任何非暴力鬥爭都包括四個步驟：(1)收集情況以判斷是否存在不公正；(2)談判；(3)自我淨化；(4)直接行動。在伯明罕我們已經歷了所有這些步驟。無可置疑的事實是，種族不公平籠罩著該市黑人社區。伯明罕可能是美國種族隔離最徹底的城市。該市員警暴行的醜惡記錄全國各地盡人皆知。該市法庭對待黑人的不公亦是臭名昭著的現實。比起我國其他城市，伯明罕有更多尚未解決的黑人家宅和教堂爆炸案。這些都是確鑿的，殘酷的，令人難以置信的事實。……
通過痛苦的經驗我們懂得了，自由不會由壓迫者自願送上門；自由必須由被壓迫者去爭取。坦率地說，我可從未參加過根據某些人的時間表是「時機恰當」的直接抗爭運動，這些人從未飽嘗種族隔離之苦。多年來我一直聽到這個話：「等待！」每個黑人的耳朵都聽膩了。這「等待」一詞幾乎總是意味著「永不行動」。它不啻起鎮靜作用的反應停，使緊張情緒放鬆片刻，卻導致沮喪失意感這一畸形兒的產生。我們必須同意昨天傑出的律師的觀點：「公正被延誤太久，也就是公正被否定。」對我們的憲法和上帝賜予的權利，我們已等待了340多年。亞洲和非洲國家正以噴射機的速度衝向政治獨立的目標，而我們卻仍以老牛破車的步速去爭取在便餐櫃檯喝上一杯咖啡。……
你們對我們意欲違反法律表示極大的憂慮。這當然是合理的關注。既然我們如此奮力地催促人們服從最高法院1954年關於在公立學校取締種族隔離的決定，那麼發現我們有意識地違反法律便會感到奇怪、荒謬。有人或許要問：「你們怎麼能既提倡違反某些法律，又提倡遵守另一些法律呢?」可以用存在著兩種法律的事實來回答：既有公正的法律，又有不公正的法律。我願第一個為遵守公正的法律大聲疾呼。一個人既有法律上，亦有道義上的責任去遵守公正的法律。反過來說，一個人有道義上的責任拒絕遵守不公正的法律。我贊成聖奧古斯丁的話：「一個不公正的法律就根本不是法律。」
那麼公正與不公正的法律二者差別何在? 人們怎樣判斷一個法律公正還是不公正呢? 一個公正的法律是人制定的符合道德法則和上帝的法則的法規。一個不公正的法律則是與道德法則不一致的模式。用聖托馬斯‧阿奎那斯的話來說，一個不公正的法律是一種並非植根於永恆和自然法則的人類法律。任何提高人格的法律是公正的，任何貶低人格的法律則是不公正的。
一切種族隔離法都不公正，因為種族隔離扭曲靈魂，損害人格。它給予實行隔離者以虛假的優越感，給予被隔離者以虛假的自卑感。借用傑出的猶太哲學家馬丁‧布貝爾的說法，隔離用「我─它」關係取代「我─你」關係，最後把人降低到物的地位。因而種族隔離不僅在政治上、經濟上、社會學意義上是荒謬的，而且在道德上也是錯誤和有罪的。保羅‧蒂利希曾說過：罪惡即是分離，難道種族隔離不是人類悲慘的分離的存在主義表現，不是人類極度的疏遠和可怕的罪孽的表現嗎? 因此我號召人們遵守最高法院1954年的決定，因為它在道德上是正確的；我號召人們拒絕遵守隔離法，因為這些法令在道德上是錯誤的。……
請允許我作另一種解釋。不公正的法律是一種強加於少數人的法規，這些人不參與該法規的制定或創立，因為他們沒有毫無阻礙地投票的權利。有誰能說頒佈種族隔離法令的阿拉巴馬州立法機關是民主產生的呢? 整個阿拉巴馬州用盡各種合謀方式阻止黑人成為正式選民。在一些縣裏黑人雖佔人口大多數，但竟然沒有一個黑人登記參加投票。難道這樣一個州確立的任何一項法律能被看作是民主制定的嗎?
我們決不能忘記，當年希特勒在德國幹的每一勾當都是「合法的」，而匈牙利自由戰士在匈牙利做的每一件事皆是「非法的」。在希特勒治下的德國，幫助、安慰一個猶太人是「非法的」。但我相信，倘若當時我生活在德國，我準會幫助、安慰我的猶太弟兄們，儘管這是非法的。倘若我今天生活在一個共產主義國家，某些基督教信仰所珍視的原則遭踐踏，我相信我會公開提倡拒絕遵守這種反宗教的法律。……
我們這一代人將不能不為壞人的惡語劣行，同時也為好人令人吃驚的沈默感到悔恨。我們必須認識到，決不能依靠必然性車輪的滾動來實現人類進步。人類進步通過自願與上帝合作的人孜孜不倦的努力、堅持不懈的工作得以實現，而若是沒有這種艱苦的工作，時間本身將成為社會惰性力量的同謀。……
你們把我們在伯明罕的活動稱為極端和行動。起初我對教會同仁竟把我的非暴力鬥爭視作極端主義者的行為感到失望。我開始考慮這麼一個實際情況，即我恰恰站在黑人社會兩股對立的力量中間，滿足於現狀的那股力量由兩類黑人組成。一類黑人因長期遭受壓迫已完全失去自尊自重之心，適應了種族隔離；第二類人是為數不多的中產階級黑人，因享有某種程度學術上和經濟上的保障，又因有時從種族隔離中獲利，他們已不自覺地變得對群眾的疾苦麻木不仁。另一股勢力飽嘗辛酸，充滿仇恨，它再向前跨出一步便會鼓吹暴力行動。該勢力體現於在全國層出不窮的各種黑人民族主義團體，其中最大最出名的是以利亞‧穆罕默德的穆斯林運動。當代人對種族歧視繼續存在的沮喪失望感使這一組織應運而生，發展壯大。它由對美國失去信念的人組成，他們徹底否定基督教，而且得出結論，認定白人為不可救藥的」魔鬼」 。
我盡力設法站在這兩股力量中間，我說我們不必追隨滿足現狀者的」無所作為主義，」也不必倣傚黑人民族主義者的 仇恨和絕望。有一種以博愛和非暴力抗議為手段的更好途徑。我感謝上帝，因為通過黑人教會，非暴力方式進入了我們的鬥爭。假如這非暴力哲學至今未誕生，那麼我肯定此刻南方許多街道已血流成河。而且我更確信，假如我們的白人弟兄把我們斥為」暴民煽動者」和」外來鼓動家」──指我們中那些通過非暴力直接行動的管道工作的人──而且拒絕支援我們的非暴力鬥爭，那麼數以百計的黑人出於沮喪和絕望將從黑人民族主義思想中獲取安慰和保護，這一發展趨勢不可避免會導致恐怖的種族對抗惡夢。
被壓迫人民不堪永遠受壓迫，爭取自由的浪潮終將到來。這便是美國黑人的經歷。內心有物提醒他們記住自己天賦的自由權；身外有物提醒他們記住自己能夠取得這權利。……
然而當我繼續思考這一問題時，我卻漸漸為自己被看作極端主義者而略感欣慰。難道耶穌不正是一個在博愛方面的極端主義者嗎? ──「愛你的敵人，祝福詛咒你的人，為虐待你的人祈禱」。難道阿摩司不正是爭取公正的極端主義者? ──「讓公正如洪水，正義如激流滾滾而來。」難道保羅不是傳播耶穌基督福音的極端主義者?──「我在自己的身體上帶著主耶穌的痕跡。」難道馬丁‧路德不是極端主義者?──「我站在這裏；我別無選擇，所以拯救我吧，上帝」。難道約翰‧班揚不是極端主義者?──「我將留在獄中直到我死去的那一天，免得把自己的良心變為屠場。」難道亞伯拉罕‧林肯不是極端主義者?──「這個國家不能在半奴隸、半自由狀況中繼續生存。」難道托馬斯‧傑斐遜不是極端主義者？── 「我們認為這些真理不言自明：人人生而平等。」
所以問題不在於我們是否要做極端主義者，而在於我們要做什麼樣的極端主義者。我們要做服務於仇恨的極端主義者還是服務於博愛的極端主義者? 我們要做為保存不公正而奮鬥的極端主義者，抑或是為正義的事業奮鬥的極端主義者? ……
我已周遊了阿拉巴馬州、密西西比州和南方其他各州。在炎熱的夏日和秋高氣爽的早晨，我看著一座座尖塔直插雲霄、外觀很美的教堂，注意到南方在營造大批宗教教育場所上不惜工本。我一次又一次情不自禁地暗自發問：「誰在這兒做禮拜? 誰是他們的上帝? 當巴尼特州長大談幹預，鼓吹拒絕執行國會的法令時，當華萊士州長公然號召挑戰，煽動仇恨時，他們的聲音上哪兒去了?…… 當代教會常常只是發出微弱、無效、動搖不定的聲音。它常常是維護現狀的主要支持者。普通地區的權力機構不但不對教會的存在感到不安，而且因教會的緘默，因教會常對現狀表示認可感到安慰。
但上帝對教會的審判從未像現在這樣嚴厲。如果當今的教會無法恢復早期教會的犧牲精神，它將喪失權威的光環，失去千百萬人對它的忠誠，被人們當作對20世紀毫無意義、無關宏旨的社會團體。……我感謝上帝，因為有組織的宗教階層中某些高尚的人已從束縛手腳、令人癱瘓的鎖鏈中掙脫出來，積極加入我們為自由而鬥爭的隊伍。……他們懷著這樣的信念踏上征程：正義即使被擊敗也比取得勝利的邪惡強大。如果說這個種族是塊麵團，這些人便是發酵劑。他們的證言已成為精神食鹽，在這動盪不安的時期用於保存福音的真話。他們已在失望的黑暗山洞中鑿通了一條希望的隧道。……但即便教會不去援助正義，我對未來也不感到絕望。即使我們的動機目前被誤解；我對我們在伯明罕鬥爭的結果也不感到擔憂。我們將在伯明罕和全美國達到自由的目標，因為美國的目標是自由。雖然我們可能被辱罵被嘲笑，我們的命運與美國的命運緊緊結合在一起。……總有一天，南方會認識到它真正的英雄是何人。他們將是詹姆斯‧馬里帝茲們，以巨大的勇氣和堅定的意志面對暴徒的嘲笑和敵視，面對令人痛苦的孤獨，而這些正是先驅者生涯的特點。他們將是年老的、飽受壓迫欺淩的黑人婦女，以阿拉巴馬州蒙哥馬利市一位72歲的老婦人為典型。她懷著自尊感與決心不乘實行隔離的公共汽車的黑人同胞們一起站立，對詢問她是否疲勞的人作了語法不規範但卻頗有深度的回答：「我的腳很累，但我的心安寧。」他們將是年輕的大中學學生、年輕的福音傳教牧師和大批年長者，勇敢而又和平地在便餐櫃檯邊靜坐抗議，為了問心無愧寧願坐牢。總有一天，南方會明白，當這些被剝奪繼承權的上帝的孩子們在便餐櫃檯坐下時，他們實際上是為實現美國夢的最佳理想，為猶太─基督教傳統最神聖的準則挺身而出，從而把整個國家帶回到民主的偉大源泉，由建國的先輩們在擬定憲法和獨立宣言時所深深開掘的源泉。……
我希望這封信能使你們堅定信念。我也希望自己有可能很快與你們每一位會面，不是以一個牧師和基督教兄弟的身份，而是作為一個主張取消種族隔離的人或一名民權領袖。讓我們期盼種族偏見的烏雲很快飛走，誤解的濃霧從我們擔驚受怕的居民區消散；讓我們期盼在不遠的明天博愛和兄弟情誼的燦爛星辰將以美麗的光華照亮我們偉大的國家。
《從伯明翰監獄寄出的信》
（Letter From Birmingham Jail）
*AUTHOR'S
NOTE: This response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from
Alabama (Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Rabbi Hilton L.
Grafman, Bishop Paul Hardin, Bishop Holan B. Harmon, the Reverend George M.
Murray. the Reverend Edward V. Ramage and the Reverend Earl Stallings) was
composed under somewhat constricting circumstance. Begun on the margins of the
newspaper in which the statement appeared while I was in jail, the letter was
continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and
concluded on a pad my attorneys were eventually permitted to leave me. Although
the text remains in substance unaltered, I have indulged in the author's
prerogative of polishing it for publication.
LETTER FROM
BIRMINGHAM JAIL
April 16,
1963
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 all of 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 had 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 withdrawal 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-off 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 to so 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.
We know
through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the
oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage
in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of
those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years
now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro
with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant
"Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists,
that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have
waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The
nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining
political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward
gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who
have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But
when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown
your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen
curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the
vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight
cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find
your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your
six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has
just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when
she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds
of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her
beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness
toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son
who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so
mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep
night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no
motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging
signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name
becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however
old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and
mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are
harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living
constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are
plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a
degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we
find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs
over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I
hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
You express
a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a
legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme
Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first
glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may
want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying
others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws:
just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has
not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one
has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St.
Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"
Now, what
is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just
or unjust? 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.
To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that
is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human
personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All
segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and
damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority
and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the
terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an
"I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends
up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically,
economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul
Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential
expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible
sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the
Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey
segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us
consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a
code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey
but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same
token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and
that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give
another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as
a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising
the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's
segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of
devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters,
and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority
of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under
such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a
law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have
been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing
wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an
ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny
citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you
are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I
advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That
would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,
lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an
individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who
willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience
of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest
respect for law.
Of course,
there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced
sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of
Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was
practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry
lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to
certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a
reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation,
the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should
never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal"
and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was
"illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in
Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time,
I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a
Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are
suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious
laws.
I must make
two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must
confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the
white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the
Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White
Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more
devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace
which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of
justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but
I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically
believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a
mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more
convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more
frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm
acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped
that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the
purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they
become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension
in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative
peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a
substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and
worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action
are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden
tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be
seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is
covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of
air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure
creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion
before it can be cured.
In your
statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned
because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this
like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the
evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving
commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the
misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like
condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing
devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come
to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to
urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights
because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and
punish the robber.
I had also
hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation
to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother
in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will
receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a
religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to
accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to
earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from
the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time
that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be
used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the
people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of
good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful
words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good
people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes
through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and
without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social
stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is
always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy
and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.
Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial
injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
You speak
of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed
that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist.
I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces
in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of
Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of
self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to
segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree
of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by
segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other
force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to
advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups
that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being
Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over
the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people
who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity,
and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have
tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither
the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of
the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and
nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the
Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.
If this
philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am
convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white
brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside
agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they
refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of
frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist
ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial
nightmare.
Oppressed
people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually
manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro.
Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something
without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously,
he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa
and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the
United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised
land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the
Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are
taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations,
and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to
the city hall; let him go on freedom rides--and try to understand why he must
do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will
seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history.
So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent."
Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be
channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this
approach is being termed extremist.
But though
I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I
continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of
satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos
an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and
righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for
the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord
Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot
do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail
to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And
Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half
free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not
whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we
be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation
of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on
Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three
were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists
for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ,
was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his
environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of
creative extremists.
I had hoped
that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic;
perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members
of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings
of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice
must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful,
however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning
of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too
few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some---such as Ralph McGill,
Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton
Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others
have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished
in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen
who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their
moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment
and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the
disease of segregation.
Let me take
note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with
the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable
exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some
significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your
Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship
service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state
for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite
these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been
disappointed with the church. 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 Rio shall lengthen.
When I was
suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery,
Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt
that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our
strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to
understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many
others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind
the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.
In spite of
my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white
religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and,
with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just
grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would
understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have
heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply
with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear
white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is
morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of
blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen
stand on the sideline and mouth pious. irrelevancies and sanctimonious
trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and
economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social
issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched
many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which
makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the
sacred and the secular.
I have
traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other
southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have
looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing
heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive
religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking:
"What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices
when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and
nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for
defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary
Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to
the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these
questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the
laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love.
There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love
the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of
being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the
church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that
body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a
time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians
rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days
the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles
of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became
disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being
"disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the
Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of
heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were
big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically
intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such
ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.
Things are
different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice
with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par
from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the
average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal
sanction of things as they are.
But the
judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not
recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its
authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an
irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I
meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright
disgust.
Perhaps I
have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably
bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn
my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the
true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that
some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from
the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the
struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the
streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South
on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have
been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and
fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is
stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that
has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have
carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
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, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom.
Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's
destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen
of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence
across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our
forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they
built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful
humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and
develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the
opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the
sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our
echoing demands.
Before
closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has
troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for
keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you
would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs
sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so
quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane
treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and
curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and
kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on
two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace
together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true
that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the
demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather
"nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil
system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached
that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we
seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to
attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps
even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor
and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett
in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to
maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said:
"The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the
wrong reason."
I wish you
had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their
sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in
the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real
heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that
enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing
loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old,
oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in
Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people
decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical
profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired,
but my soul is at rest." There will be the young high school and college
students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders,
courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going
to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these
disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality
standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred
values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to
those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in
their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before
have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your
precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had
been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone
in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and
pray long prayers?
If I have
said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an
unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that
understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to
settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this
letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon
make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a
civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us
all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the
deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities,
and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood
will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for
the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin
Luther King, Jr.
沒有留言:
張貼留言