Homework for Week of 11/30 to Dec 7 - due Dec 7

"...something has happened in the last (eighty) years. The freedom that once was founded on a Biblical consensus and a Christian worldview has now become autonomous freedom, cut loose from all constraints. Here we have the world spirit of our age - autonomous man setting himself up as God, in defense of the knowledge and the moral and spiritual truth which God has given. Here is the reason why we have a moral breakdown in every area of life. The titanic freedoms which we once enjoyed have been cut loose from their Christian restraints and are becoming a force of destruction leading to chaos. And when this happens, there really are few alternatives. All morality becomes relative, law becomes arbitrary, and society moves toward disintegration. In personal and social life, compassion is swallowed up by self-interest...when the memory of the Christian consensus which gave us freedom within the Biblical form is increasingly forgotten, a manipulative authoritarian power will tend to fill the vacuum. At this point, the words "right" and "left" (politically) will make little difference. They are only two roads to the same end; the results will be the same. Overwhelming (state power) will gradually force form and order on society so that it will not sink into chaos - and most people will accept it." So are the words and thoughts of Francis Schaeffer, this time in his book, "The Great Evangelical Disaster" Quoting this statement in a recent article, Brannon Howse, president of "Worldview Weekend" concludes, "The chaos is now here, and politicians will seek to make it worse so they can justify bigger government, fewer freedoms for the people, and more power and wealth for the elite ruling class. Are Americans waking up too late? Are the numbers of Americans who understand the threat - or even care - too small? If the answer to these two questions is yes, then the only question left to ask is what will happen to those of us that refuse to accept it? If America's fate is sealed, then this one thing I know: future generations will ask...Where were the people of the churches? Why did they let that happen? Why did they compromise?... In standing for what is just, righteous, and true, we are standing for Jesus Christ because justice, righteousness, and truth are reflections of His character and nature. This is a powerful witness for the unsaved and unbelieving world. Even in the face of death, the world will see that we are so committed to the cause of Christ that we are willing to lay down our lives for Him."

Written project Due Dec 14 - See last HW blog for instructions...

Quiz on Dec 14 on US Constitution - no study guide will be given...You are to rely on your notes for studying, so be diligent in your note taking!!

Catch up on past HW not completed and do Extra Credit!!!

The Manhattan Declaration is a document recently put out by religious leaders concerning Abortion, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience. Many have signed the document in support, but some Christians have chosen not to sign it.

1. Click on http://manhattandeclaration.org/ Read the intro on the home page, then click on "Download a summary of the Manhattan Declaration on the right side of the page (If you want to read the entire document also, there is a link for that as well) and read the summary.

2. Click on the sites below and read the articles. The first is from a Christian leader who has chosen not to sign the document. The second is from a leader who has chosen to sign. The third is a summary of both sides of the argument.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A390

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/

http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5634/Brannon-Howse/Jan-Markell

3. Write a one page opinion paper (front of one page or more), stating whether YOU would sign the document and explain why or why not. You will be graded not on your choice, but on your ability to express your views and support your choice. Think carefully before answering and use the articles for ideas in addition to what we have discussed in class and your beliefs from your own worldview beliefs.

Homework 11/16 - 11/30 Due 11/30

TO ALL STUDENTS -- CHANGES IN ANNOUNCED PLANS -- PLEASE TAKE NOTE: 1. DUE TO A LACK OF RESPONSE, GETTYSBURG TRIP WILL BE RESCHEDULED FOR A DIFFERENT TIME...I KNOW THIS IS A BUSY TIME OF YEAR, SO WE WILL TRY TO DO SOMETHING AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR 2. THERE WILL BE NO QUIZ ON NOV 30 -- QUIZ WILL BE RESCHEDULED FOR DEC. 14. 3. MIDTERM WILL BE GIVEN ON FIRST CLASS AFTER CHRISTMAS BREAK. MIDTERM WILL BE 80 QUESTIONS AND TWO ESSAY QUESTIONS. STUDY GUIDE WILL BE PROVIDED. 4. PROJECTS ARE STILL DUE ON DEC 14. 5. ORAL PRESENTATIONS ON NEW BOOK, "A CONVERSATION WITH C.S. LEWIS" WILL BEGIN IN MID JANUARY. PLEASE PURCHASE BOOK AND BEGIN READING. 6. IMPORTANT!! PLEASE COMPLETE ALL HOMEWORK BELOW (ONE ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN ADDED FOR THIS WEEK - PLEASE TAKE NOTE AND COMPLETE) AND CATCH UP ON ANY HW YOU HAVE NOT TURNED IN -- THERE ARE ASSIGNMENTS STILL OUTSTANDING FOR SOME AND POINTS TO BE GOTTEN -- ALSO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXTRA CREDIT POINTS. IF YOU ARE UNSURE IF YOU HAVE OUTSTANDING ASSIGNMENTS, PLEASE E-MAIL ME AND I WILL BE GLAD TO LET YOU KNOW. 7. HAVE A GREAT THANKSGIVING.


Fact to consider...The shift from a Christian/Reformation worldview to a Humanist one began to occur in Germany, the home of reformer Martin Luther, with the higher criticism of the authority of Scripture and the questioning of absolute truth beginning in the 1850's... Then, after eight decades, roughly 85 years, of economic,political, social, religious, and military upheaval, the German people WILLINGLY CHOSE to give away the 400 years of religious and political freedoms they had enjoyed for the absolute power and authority of Adolf Hitler. When did the same shift in worldviews begin in earnest in the United States?...Our next lesson will reveal the answer...

Read Chapter 10, the last chapter of "A Christian Manifesto" and answer the following questions

1. What does Schaeffer say has been used as a tool to force the false secular humanist worldview and it's results on everyone? _________________________
2 -8 List the seven key points Schaeffer notes to summarize his manifesto.
9. Schaeffer says it is the responsibility of those holding the Christian worldview to show _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
10. The manifesto ends with two separate Bible passages from Isaiah 59:12-16 and Revelation 3:2. Read the passages carefully and write a brief explanation, stating why you feel Schaeffer chose these passages to end his book.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Read the article on the link below from the Barna Research Group - this is a VERY interesting look at current worldviews in America, especially among those who claim to be Christian. This article will probably anger or upset you with it's findings, but I believe all believers today must know the impact that the humanist worldview has had on our nation and the church and how much needs to be done to turn our churches and nation back to a Biblical worldview. Write a summary of the article, telling me the three statistics or facts that impacted you the most and why. The Barna site has many excellent articles - read and write a brief summary on as many as you want - extra credit will be given for any additional articles at any time moving forward.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years


Go to link below and read the article "Without God There is No Law" Write a brief summary of the article, expessing what you thin are the three main points the writer is trying to get across. After reading the article, are you more optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the Christian worldview in America?

http://www.americanvision.org/article/without-god-there-is-no-law/

Read the following essay at the link below about earthly and spiritual high ground. Do you think the author's comparison is a valid one? Why or Why not?


http://neumyshare.blogspot.com/2009/10/holding-high-ground.html

NOTE: I ADDED THIS ASSIGNMENT ON 11/23 - PLEASE COMPLETE AND TURN IN NEXT WEEK

Go to site below and read the recent major decisions of the Supreme Court on vital issues. Notice how many votes are 5-4 decisions. Read each decision and write down the case and whether you agree with the majority position and why or why not. We will discuss these cases in class and dig into the legal reasoning and worldview connections...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/conlaw/landmarkvotes.html









Continue working on your projects due 12/14. From books, newspapers, magazines, websites, or other sources, choose 10 articles that relate to worldview, religion, freedom, government, social issues, rights, etc...The articles can be about current issues (abortion, religious freedom, gun control, capital punishment, right to bear arms, same-sex marriage, victim's rights, national security, law enforcement, etc) or about historical issues/events (founding of the nation, civil rights issues in the civil war or WW II, slavery, segregation and discrimination, Scopes Trial, public education, etc) After reading ten articles, write a 3+ page paper explaining the content of each article, how it relates to the issues of government/law and worldview, and what your personal opinions are on the topic. Be SURE to back up your personal opinions with facts that support your belief. IF YOU"D LIKE TO PICK ONE TOPIC AND DO THE ENTIRE PAPER ON IT OR ANY NUMBER OF TOPICS BETWEEN 1 AND 10, THAT IS OK AS LONG AS YOU STILL HAVE TEN DIFFERENT ARTICLES OR SOURCES TOTAL IN YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Include a cover page and bibliography (not included in the 3+ pages)




EXTRA CREDIT on Upcoming Terrorist Trials

Go to the c-span link below and click on "Fmr. Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey Remarks at Federalist Society Lawyers Convention". Watch the video and write a brief summary of the comments and opinions of Mr. Mukasey. Why do you think this is such an important issue and what points do you put forth to support your opinion. You may use any notes or thoughts you have from class on 11/16 as we will have discussed this issue then as well.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-25694

The following link shows a Senate hearing today involving Attorney General Eric Holder answering questions regarding the decision to try 9-11 terrorists in civilian couts in NY - very interesting, particularly the last 25 minutes or so. Watch and write a brief summary for extra credit

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/18/HP/R/26128/Atty+General+Holder+Responds+to+Critics+on+Guantanamo+Bay.aspx

Homework for week of 11/9 - due 11/16

Because of the videos, it may take a little longer than normal to complete the homework. Please take note of that and don't wait until the last minute - it will make things tougher for you...Please complete the assignment entirely (extra credit optional of course)

Trip to Gettysburg is possible on Sat Nov 28. Check with parents to see if you can make it on that date. If most can make it, we will leave St. Tim's at 8:30 am and return around 6 pm. Cost should be no more than $10-$15 per person. We will need some parents to go along as drivers/chaperones - please let me know by next Monday Nov 16 if you can attend and if you can "provide a parent"

FIRST HALF PROJECT REMINDER (due on last class before Christmas break)

From books, newspapers, magazines, websites, or other sources, choose 10 articles that relate to worldview, religion, freedom, government, social issues, rights, etc...The articles can be about current issues (abortion, religious freedom, gun control, capital punishment, right to bear arms, same-sex marriage, victim's rights, national security, law enforcement, etc) or about historical issues/events (founding of the nation, civil rights issues in the civil war or WW II, slavery, segregation and discrimination, Scopes Trial, public education, etc) After reading ten articles, write a 3+ page paper explaining the content of each article, how it relates to the issues of government/law and worldview, and what your personal opinions are on the topic. Be SURE to back up your personal opinions with facts that support your belief. In addition to the ten articles, you must have at least five other sources. Include a cover page and bibliography (not included in the 3+ pages)

Remember your projects due Dec 14. Next quiz Nov 30. Study guide will be posted beginning Nov 23.

Read the following article and write a brief summary of the main points and your opinion of the article.

The Uniqueness of the American Experiment (Peter Marshall Ministries)

In 1776, the Founding Fathers of the United States made an extraordinary announcement to the rest of the world. In the most famous written paragraph in American history, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why do I call this "an extraordinary announcement"? Because this was the only time in human history that a nation's government was founded on a creed, a statement of faith, a profession of belief.

The Declaration of Independence is the statement of America's founding ideals, a vision statement, if you will, that is utterly unique in world history.

Further, this uniquely American contribution to the history of humanity: the belief that all men are created equal, is the bedrock of our civilization.

Any progress we Americans have made through the centuries in creating a society of liberty and justice for all has come by the application of this self-evident truth to the way we Americans live with each other.

At the time of every great social crisis in our history this question has been at the heart of the conflict:

Do we truly believe that all men are created equal, or are these just empty words and political window-dressing?

This issue was the pivotal issue of the American Revolution, the struggle against slavery, the women's movement, the Civil Rights movement, and is now at the center of the pro-life movement.

This is why I believe that the Declaration needs to have a pre-eminent place in the teaching of history to our children -- because this idea of human equality has literally created American history.

Down through the centuries the American people have always believed that any public policy that robs some people of their basic equality with other people is fundamentally wrong.

Notice that Thomas Jefferson said that these announced truths were "self-evident."

What he meant was that it was not just the Founding Fathers themselves that believed all men are created equal -- it was pervasive throughout the American colonies.

That means that this was an "uh-huh" statement -- everybody knew this. Jefferson said that he was not trying "to say things which had not been said before, but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject."

How could the Founding Fathers say these truths were self-evident? What shaped their thinking?

James Otis, the orator of the American Revolution, wrote that government

"has an ever-lasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God, the author of nature, whose laws never vary . . . There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God Almighty, who has given all men a natural right to be free."(1)

Alexander Hamilton:

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."(2)

Samuel Adams:

"The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift."(3)

Thomas Jefferson asserted that the only basis for American freedoms was the conviction among the people that "these liberties are the gift of God."(4)

There are so many other similar quotes from the Founding Fathers that it is obvious beyond contradiction that they structured American government on the basis of the natural rights of mankind, which they firmly believed are the gift of God.

Equally obvious is the fact that these beliefs were not exclusive to them -- they were shared by the vast majority of colonial Americans.

Some historians like to lump together the American and French Revolutions, since they both were based on the natural rights of mankind. But, the uniqueness of the Declaration of Independence as the basis of American government is seen in the fact that at no point in either of the French declarations of "the rights of man" is there any statement that these rights derive from God.

Perry Miller, the late dean of Puritan history at Harvard, was fond of decrying what he termed the "obtuse secularism"(5) of those who, in LSU Professor Ellis Sandoz's words,

"approach the founding as a merely rationalistic enterprise of men preoccupied with the European Enlightenment's progressive notions and contemptuous of traditional religion."(6)

Miller insisted that Protestant Christianity was at the heart of the American Revolution. In his famous essay, From the Covenant to the Revival, Professor Miller wrote that

"The basic fact is that the Revolution had been preached to the masses as a religious revival, and had the astonishing fortune to succeed."(7)

Most historians agree that one simply cannot properly teach the history of America's founding period unless the impact of the First Great Awakening is taken into account.

Why? Because this explosive revival, which began in the 1720's in New Jersey, and carried the colonies through the Revolution and the establishment of our new government, was characterized by preaching that stressed the equality of mankind, thereby strongly promoting American democratic beliefs.

For instance, the preaching of George Whitefield, the best-known evangelist of the age, who gave over 18,000 sermons from Maine to Georgia, and, according to Ben Franklin, drew 10,000 people to Market Square in Philadelphia, emphasized that God is no respecter of persons, meaning that He pays no attention to people's social status, and that all alike must surrender to Christ and receive salvation from Him.

This democratic and leveling impact of the evangelical pulpit that helped the American people revolt against the social and political tyranny being waged by a corrupt British aristocracy cannot be overestimated.

The message was unmistakably clear: the only legitimate government in both Church and State, in the sight of Him who made all men equal, is that which governs by the consent of the governed.

The contrast between an American people that deeply believed that all men are created equal and the aristocratic and tyrannous attitudes of an elitist British government could not possibly have been more stark.

The Founding Fathers' belief in human equality came from the teachings of Reformer John Calvin on civil government, the teachings of English Puritans on civil government, and Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford's important 1744 work Lex, Rex, (the law is king) - thoroughly familiar to the Founding Fathers, in which he wrote that "all are born alike and equal."(8)

The importance of religion to the Founding Fathers in the Continental Congress is further seen in the fact that the Congress called for 16 separate days of prayer and fasting, or thanksgiving and prayer, depending on the progress of the war, during the five years of its duration.

For example, on December 11, 1776, the colonists were:

"to reverence the Providence of God . . . and beg the countenance of his Providence in the prosecution of the present just and necessary war."(9)

Their language here was not just some kind of religious boilerplate. So concerned were they about the moral and spiritual lives of the soldiers that on June 30, 1775, the Continental Congress decreed:

"It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend Divine service; and all officers and soldiers who shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine worship, shall . . . be brought before a court martial."(10)

It is not possible to accurately teach American history without taking into account the religious motivations and worldview of those who discovered this continent, settled the original colonies, fought for our independence from Britain, and established our government.

The sharing of that Bible-based worldview on the part of both the people and their political leadership during the founding period meant that there was fundamental agreement on the self-evident truths that motivated the struggle for independence and the founding of our government.

Americans still believe that all men are equal before God and before the law; we still believe that these human beings who are created equal are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; we still believe that governments exist primarily to secure these rights; we still believe that the authority of government rests only on the consent of the governed, and that if the government loses that consent, the people have the right to alter or abolish it.

These self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence that are the basis for American government are still unique among the nations to this very hour.

Let us teach our children the uniqueness of America -- that this is a godly experiment in self-government that has no equal in all of human history.

Let us pass on to them a love of this great nation; and let us lay on their hearts a sense of duty and responsibility to ensure that this experiment succeeds, that what Lincoln called "the last, best hope of earth" does not fail, and that Lady Liberty's torch in New York Harbor is never allowed to go dark.

READ SCHAEFFER CHAPTER 9 AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW

1. Schaeffer states that there comes a time when force is appropriate, but it should be in the ______________________posture.

2. He gives two historical examples of using force in self defense. name them ____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. Schaeffer states that a current issue is crucial for the future of the church in the United States - what is that issue? _______________________________________

4. Read Dr. William Barker's view on the role of civil disobedience in connection with that critical issue on pg. 119. Do you agree with Dr. barker's view? Why or why not?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

5. Schaeffer notes a belief system called liberation theology. Define liberation theology. What other worldviews is it similar to or connected with? ___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

6. Schaeffer states on Pg 125-126 that we have a duty to use our possessions with _________________.

7. He states that because the church has failed to do this, many make the mistake of equating the _________________________ with a ______________________.

8. On pg 126, Schaeffer states that the founders believed that there was a 'bottom line' principle that had to be believed and acted upon so that the state could never become all powerful and take the place of God. Read carefully. What is that 'bottom line principle?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

9. The Declaration states that the people, if they find that there rights are being attaked and taken away by the state, have a duty to __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

10. What was the "black regiment" and why was it important? ________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

11. What helped to "sow the seeds" (prepare the way for) of the American Revolution? Explain how so. (pg 128-129) ______________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

12. Define autonomous ____________________________________________________

13. After reading the conclusion to the chapter, explain why, in Schaeffer's opinion, there must be a "bottom line" or a final place for civil disobedience. ______________________
________________________________________________________________________

14. If there is no place for civil disobedience, then the _______________ has been put in the place of God.

15. The early Christians in New Testament times performed their acts of civil disobedience even ___________________________________________________________________

Look up the following names and write a BRIEF paragraph on them:

16. John Bunyan - "If you release me today, I will preach tomorrow"

17. The "Tank man" of Tiananmen Square, China - "the unknown voice of millions"

18. Angelina Grimke - I recognize no rights but human rights -- I know nothing of men's rights and women's rights; for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. It is my solemn conviction that, until this principal of equality is recognized and embodied in practice, the church can do nothing effectual for the permanent reformation of the world.

19. Mordecai Anielewicz - 'Who will write our history? Who will tell our story?"

20. Raoul Wallenberg - "100,000 people owe him their lives."

21. Simon Wiesenthal - “What connects two thousand years of genocide? Too much power in too few hands.” “There is no denying that Hitler and Stalin are alive (even) today... they are waiting for us to forget, because this is what makes possible the resurrection of these two monsters.”

22. Medgar Evers - "You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea."

23. Ralph McGill - "the desire for individual dignity and freedom . . . is in the genes of all mankind."

Copy and paste to Go to the c-span site below and click on "House Floor Debate on Health Care - The Stupak Amendment" on the left of the page. Despite the voice vote at the end of the debate, a recorded vote was done and the amendment to restrict the use of federal funds for abortion was passed by a vote of 240-194. Many still oppose the bill on other grounds and many are concerned that as the process goes forward, the amendment will be taken back out of the final bill. Listen to the debate and write a brief summary of your opinion of how the debate was conducted and what was said. Choose two speakers, one you agreed with and one you did not agree with and write a brief note about them, explaining your opinions of the issue and of what they said.

http://www.c-span.org/Health-Care-House-Debate.aspx


Copy and paste to Go to the c-span site below and click on "Justices Scalia and Breyer on the Constitution at the top of the page. Watch the discussion the two justices have regarding how they interpret the Constitution. Listen carefully to the discussion and write a brief opinion on which justice's philosophy and opinions you agree with most and why.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/31/AC/R/24809/Justices+Scalia+Breyer+on+the+Constitution.aspx

EXTRA CREDIT

Visit the site below and click on "select a topic" on the right hand side of the page and write a brief summary of what you learned about three separate topics and it's relationship to the Constitution. (Do more than three for extra extra credit)

http://ratify.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/index_no_flash.php

Homework for 11/2 - 11/9

Read Chapter 8 of Schaeffer's "A Christian Manifesto" and answer the following questions:

1. Schaeffer states that Rutherford claims that for the individual, there are three appropriate levels of resistance or civil disobedience. Name them ____________________________________________________________
2. Rutherford states also that when a group, state, church or organization has illegitimate acts committed against it, there are two levels of appropriate resistance. Name them _______________________________________________________
3. What are the four basic points made by John Locke concerning government? ___________________________________________________________
4. Locke states that there is a time when there must be civil disobedience on the ______________ level.
5. Schaeffer defines "force" as ______________________________________.
6. Schaeffer states that ALWAYS, before force or protest is used, one must work for ______________. In other words, one should attempt to _________and _____________society.
7. Read pages 106 and 107 carefully and note the discussion between the difference between force and violence. Based on this section, but in your own words, what is the difference? ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
8. Schaeffer believes that at this time in our history, _________is our most viable alternative concerning civil disobedience.
9. After reading pg 112, describe the qualities of a society controlled by a humanist worldview ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
10. Write down the quote from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn about the effects of humanism on the state (pg 112) ______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
11. On pg 113, Scahaeffer notes the ultimate difference between the Reformation (Christian) worldview and the humanist worldview. What is it? ____________________________________________________________
12. Read pg 115-116 carefully and summarize the key point in your own words._______________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Read Article II of the Constitution below and answer the questions below:


ARTICLE II -- THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH - duty to enforce the law

Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Questions

1. The president and Vice President serve for a term of _____ years
2. Electors from each state are equal to the number of _____________________________________________________________from that state.
3. Who opens the votes of the electors and counts them? _____________________
4. If the electoral vote ends in a tie, which body of the government then votes to choose the president? ___________________
5. What are the three requirements to be eligible to be President? _____________________________________________________________
6. Can the president's salary be increased while he is in office? _____________
7. What is the exact oath of office each president recites upon his being sworn in? __________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
8. What four words has every president since George Washington added to the end of the oath? __________________________________
9. According to Art II, Sec II, the president holds what position in respect to the armed forces of the US? _______________________________________________
10. According to Art II, Sec II, may the president make AND establish a treaty on his own? _____ If not,what check is placed on his power to do so? _____________________________________________________________
11. According to Art II, Sec II, what appointments may the President make? _____________________________________________________________
12. May he do so himself with no check or oversight? _________________
13. According to Art II, Sec III, how often must the president give to Congress a State of the Union message? ________ In actual practice now, how often is this done? _____________
14. According to Art II, Sec IV, on what grounds may the president, after impeachment and conviction, be removed from office? _____________________________________________________
15. In US history,how many presidents have been impeached (charged)?________How many have been convicted and removed from office? ________


Read the following letter from civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and the information on the letter that follows. Write a brief summary of the article and your opinion of Dr King's thoughts and methods of civil disobedience. Write down any of his words, sentences or ideas that you were especially impressed with. One of the great documents in American history, Martin Luther King Jr's letter to clergymen who had questioned his motives and methods in striving for equal justice for all is the quintessential statement regarding the proper role of civil disobedience and moral justice. In remembering all those who suffered, sacrificed,and strove to champion righteousness in the face of abject evil, one is humbled and awe inspired in the presence of such heroes. They truly succeeded, in the prophetic voice of A.W. Tozer, in "bringing eternity to bear upon time." Today, as in 1963, there is no greater need and no greater cause. May the current generation draw inspiration and courage from the great cloud of witnesses and workers that have gone before us - may we, again, as always, stand eternally vigilant for freedom and equality for all people - it is a work which, in the words of Lincoln, "the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless."

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

16 April 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 statement 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 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 mayoral 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 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, so 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 in 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 still 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 darts 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 county 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 are 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 well 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 sinful. Paul Tillich has 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 see 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 fail 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 all 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 irrational 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 first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I 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 all 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 nonsegregated 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 life 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. I 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 leaders; all 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, un-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? I 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. Far 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 will 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 ekklesia 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 jail 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 and all over the nation, because the goal of America is 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 handling 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. They 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. They will be 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." They 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.

One of the most important movements in the United States has been for civil rights — economic, political and social equality for African-Americans and other minorities. In the 1960s much of the momentum for the civil rights movement came from public demonstrations. Demonstrators were often jailed for disturbing the peace and similar offenses. In one such case in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others were jailed in Birmingham, Alabama. King and the others were strongly criticized. Eight Birmingham clergymen wrote a letter to express their criticism. This letter appeared as a paid advertisement in a Birmingham newspaper.

King wrote a letter that explained his reasons for rallying local residents to demonstrate against segregation. As King relates, his response to the eight clergymen was “begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while [he] was in jail, … continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad [his] attorneys were eventually permitted to leave [him].”

Concepts Found in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

• The First Amendment guarantees rights to the demonstrators:
  
  
  • Free expression of religion. King believed blacks had been denied their “God-given rights.”
    
    
  • Freedom of speech. King publicly called for civil rights at the demonstrations.
    
    
  • Freedom of assembly. King organized the demonstrations.
    
    
  • Freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.
    
    
  • This was one goal of King’s protest.
  
  
• When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. refers to "God-given rights," he is referring to inalienable rights, those rights that the government does not define or create. Rights such as life, liberty and happiness are considered inalienable. Constitutional rights are established by federal and state constitutions and refined through legislation. These rights include voting rights, equal protection of the laws and due process. In America a special group of rights exists that are both constitutional and inalienable. For more than 200 years, United States citizens have relied on the First Amendment to prevent government interference with the inalienable rights and freedoms of belief and expression.
  
  
• Time was part of his argument. Blacks had been told many times to wait for change, which never happened. King was demanding freedom and justice “too long denied.” Note his use of “wait,” “patient” and “unavoidable impatience.” The demonstrations were demanding freedom now.
  
  
• King was educating the clergy and public through this letter. He was trying to let people everywhere know what conditions blacks faced in their lives. He wanted to show how his protests were related to the rights others already enjoyed. He also said freedom is never given by oppressors unless the oppressed demand it.
  
  
• King acknowledged the importance of maintaining law and order, and protecting the public from disturbances and violence. Patience and waiting, negotiation and other less vocal, less public actions like letters to the editor or lobbying city councils or legislatures have all been tried. They had no recourse but nonviolent direct action.
  
  
• King was willing to take the legal consequences of nonviolent direct action. Often a permit is required to preserve free speech and to ensure public safety at large assemblies. Without a permit the gathering may be unlawful. Protests that experience suggests may lead to unlawful acts, such as rioting, arson or physical violence, are also subject to tight restrictions. Emotional demonstrations may start out lawful, but turn dangerous. The police must judge how the participants and observers are behaving, and suppress speech only if it is likely to incite immediate lawless behavior. The basic principle involved is to find a way to allow speech and assembly to happen rather than to stop the expression.
  
  
• The urgency of blacks’ demands for equality was in conflict with the belief in slow change.
  
  
• King never forgets his primary audience — “my Christian and Jewish brothers,” clergy from Roman Catholic, Jewish and different Protestant traditions. There was more to unite than to separate them. In his conclusion he refers to the “disinherited children of God,” “sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage,” “great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers” and “strong in the faith.” King felt both sides respected the law, though he felt compelled to break “unjust laws.” He was a “fellow clergyman and a Christian brother.”

REMINDER

Remember your first half project:


FIRST HALF PROJECT (due on last class before Christmas break)

From books, newspapers, magazines, websites, or other sources, choose 10 articles that relate to worldview, religion, freedom, government, social issues, rights, etc...The articles can be about current issues (abortion, religious freedom, gun control, capital punishment, right to bear arms, same-sex marriage, victim's rights, national security, law enforcement, etc) or about historical issues/events (founding of the nation, civil rights issues in the civil war or WW II, slavery, segregation and discrimination, Scopes Trial, public education, etc) After reading ten articles, write a 3+ page paper explaining the content of each article, how it relates to the issues of government/law and worldview, and what your personal opinions are on the topic. Be SURE to back up your personal opinions with facts that support your belief. In addition to the ten articles, you must have at least five other sources. Include a cover page and bibliography (not included in the 3+ pages)