Religion & The 60's

[A_Thug_Fessional]

JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X. Does anyone else find that a bit troubling that so many people of political or social importance could just be murdered/assasinated/lynched in such a short span of time? That's one thing that troubled me about the 60's imparticular. I mean, I believe this was around the time that 4 innocent little girls were sentenced to death when some cowards bombed an Alabama church, I believe HBO did a documentary on it. How do people rationalize or condone violence against another just because of the color of their skin, their religion, sexual preference, or just because I have a different opinion than them? I think this is what drove me away from religion at one point in time. I mean for all the hub bub we (Americans) are making about muslims killing in the name of religion, our past isn't so perfect. A lot of lynchings and racial 'purification' was done in the name of christianity...you know, the whole 1/5th a man argument and shit of that nature was based on christianity. There are no dicks, tits, or ass in this post. I just want some debate/assessment on the role of religion and it's social ramifications for the perpetuation of violence.

[A_Thug_Fessional]

more

[Legend]

Religion is a heated topic here and too be people dont wanna discuss here so be warned!

[kieron]

I feel that these (Malcolm X, JFK, Martin Luther King Jnr) people were assassinated in the '60s because the CIA and americas 'war generals' thought "Oh shit, these people are doing good for this country and we can't get the american people to live in fear any more, we've got to get rid of them!"

Those same people that gave the orders to assassinate the ones mentioned at the top wanted to maintain the 'status quo' of the white man at the top and everyone else beneath them...just my thoughts - i'm pakeha (maori for white) and am not proud of what the white race has done in the past at all wether in the USA or in Australasia (White vs Aborigine in australia and white vs Maori in New Zealand).

[Ecstatic]

Individual conspiracy theories about these three are usually full of holes, yet I have always found it strange that three such prominent Americans were cut down in such a short time. The one that I wonder the most about is RFK, whose assasination I'm convinced was a turning point in the wrong way for the second half of the 20th century and even the first half of the 21st. Had he not been assasinated, I think he would have been elected, and if he had been elected, everything since would have been almost inconceivably different: no Nixon, no failed Carter one-term, no Reagan/Bush followed by a centrist Dem followed by who-know-who. IMHO, RFK's death was the most tragic of the three and the most consequential for the world.

[GroobySteven]

I'm pretty sure that MLK and Malcom X's deaths were orchastrated by people close to them with outside influences, it seems that's the most common school of thought.
JFK's though must remain the greatest mystery of the 20th century. The magic bullet theory, the inability for marksmen to make that shot, the killing of Oswald soon after... so many theories.
seanchai

[chefmike]

re JFK...just look at Jack Ruby's ties to the mob, and all the allegations re mob/CIA involvement...the CIA was furious that JFK changed his mind on the Bay of Pigs fiasco...James Ellroy has some great stuff on this in his American Tabloid saga...technically it's fiction...but it's historical fiction...

[yourdaddy]

None of those events were done in the name of religion. Don't try to push your phisophy.

[GroobySteven]

None of those events were done in the name of religion. Don't try to push your phisophy.

Malcom X's was undoubtably in the name of religion, or factors in a specific religion.

I think you meant philosophy, "phisophy" is the study of the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet.
seanchai

[chefmike]

None of those events were done in the name of religion. Don't try to push your phisophy.

Malcom X's was undoubtably in the name of religion, or factors in a specific religion.

I think you meant philosophy, "phisophy" is the study of the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet.
seanchai

It's widely believed that Farrakkan engineered the death of Malcom X, isn't it?

[yourdaddy]

That's not religion. It's ego, murder, power, ego, stupidity, ego, money, ego. That idiot is just like The "reverand" Jesse Jackson. How much of what he tries to screw uo is in the name of religion? Wake up, you naive people.

[GroobySteven]

It's ego, murder, power, ego, stupidity, ego, money, ego.

That pretty much sounds like organised religion to me?
seanchai

[DD Philly]

Individual conspiracy theories about these three are usually full of holes, yet I have always found it strange that three such prominent Americans were cut down in such a short time. The one that I wonder the most about is RFK, whose assasination I'm convinced was a turning point in the wrong way for the second half of the 20th century and even the first half of the 21st. Had he not been assasinated, I think he would have been elected, and if he had been elected, everything since would have been almost inconceivably different: no Nixon, no failed Carter one-term, no Reagan/Bush followed by a centrist Dem followed by who-know-who. IMHO, RFK's death was the most tragic of the three and the most consequential for the world.

E, great point. I am 45 and was a little too young to know what was going on when all that happened, but I truly believe Bobby Kennedy would have won that election much to the dismay of a lot of important people.

[chefmike]

It's ego, murder, power, ego, stupidity, ego, money, ego.

That pretty much sounds like organised religion to me?
seanchai

LMAO...yourdaddy's idea of organized religion is handling snakes and drinking strychnine....praise jesus, praise his name...and pass that rattlesnake, with a strychnine chaser...

[yourdaddy]

I was an alter boy as a kid, but have you ever seen me praise any form of religion? You're just a hypocrite with your anti-religion posts. Live and let live. I suppose you also want to change the name of Las Cruces, New Mexico.

[Nardo_7]

I must say, from my own Poli-Sci point of view that I agree with ChefMike on his opinion. I'm going to go to the 20,000 foot altitude, however, and express what I believe happened as more of a global theory.

I believe that almost all of these actions, and many happening today, are/were motivated out of fear. In the case of JFK, RFK, and even MLK, you had the fear of change. Many of the involved authorities (it's proven that the FBI had files on all names mentioned) were terrified of change, specifically, the loss of influence. The US had been on an "exterminate communism" bent for years, and it had empowered the millitary to levels unheard of before WW2. Several events in 1964 were manipulated shortly after as an excuse to allow millitary involvement in Vietnam. JFK simply would not have gone along with the plan.

The same politics are in play now. The particular fear involved is the same. For example, I will point to the current trend as referenced in an excellent Newsweek essay by Dickey. It's a quick search on msnbc.com if you want to dig deeper. Look closely at the special prosecution and what's happening to Libby. The current administration has been playing hardball with anyone that spoke out against invading Iraq. It's no wonder Democrats went along, they were terrified of being painted "pinko hippies" by the Fox-Hannity-O'Reilly-Rush conglomerate, which was spoonfed by the administration. John Murtha has taken the biggest risk of his career by speaking out in such a way, whether we agree or not. Our government has seen fit to imprison people, guilty or not, in foreign prisons so as to hide their actions from the press and avoid the law in the actions they take. This should frighten the public, but we simply have had it too good to notice until now. Keep the public fat and happy, and they won't bother to look into your affairs. Halliburton almost immediately got the Katrina cleanup contract. Do you see the smoke yet????

Back to the original motive: fears. I lived in Oklahoma City in 1995. I've seen what fear can do close up. The pro-gun micro-culture determined that they would strike back against a government that they felt would take away their power. In 1983, this building was targeted the first time, by a man who was put to death on 4/19/1995! Don't believe me, look it up! He targeted that building because it was a racially diverse office of the government. It was targeted the second time to for retaliation for Waco, which also took place on the militia's "Patriot's Day" of April 19, which probably was a statement of the government against the militias, or just extremely bad coincidence.

Wheels within wheels people. All we can do is admire those who take a stand. In my opinion, no person with a bomb will ever have as much courage as the one man in Tiananmen square who stood in front of the tank without a weapon of any kind.

Rant over...winding down...

[A_Thug_Fessional]

That's not religion. It's ego, murder, power, ego, stupidity, ego, money, ego. That idiot is just like The "reverand" Jesse Jackson. How much of what he tries to screw uo is in the name of religion? Wake up, you naive people.


I'm no Jesse fan but correct me if i'm wrong...he never had anyone killed. Big difference between cold killer and poverty pusher.

[Ecstatic]

E, great point. I am 45 and was a little too young to know what was going on when all that happened, but I truly believe Bobby Kennedy would have won that election much to the dismay of a lot of important people.
DD, I'm 54 so I'm certainly old enough to remember that time and those events well. My first bit of political awareness was the Cuban missle crisis (though I was a tad young to really appreciate it). But while I remember RFK well, I was just too young to have voted in that election, so I had to wait for the Nixon/McGovern debacle (anyone remember "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper stickers?). So yeah, I'm convinced that RFK would've beaten Nixon and that the country and world would have been quite different. I also believe that JFK would have pulled out of Viet Nam much sooner. On the other hand, sadly, I don't know that MLK would have accomplished anything much different than what he had, and in fact his martyrdom may have been in many ways a good thing for the movement (not a good thing, mind you, it was an evil and heinous act, but one which galvanized people to effect change where RFK was simply cut off and there was no one capable to take up his banner in his stead at the time).

[A_Thug_Fessional]

E, great point. I am 45 and was a little too young to know what was going on when all that happened, but I truly believe Bobby Kennedy would have won that election much to the dismay of a lot of important people.
DD, I'm 54 so I'm certainly old enough to remember that time and those events well. My first bit of political awareness was the Cuban missle crisis (though I was a tad young to really appreciate it). But while I remember RFK well, I was just too young to have voted in that election, so I had to wait for the Nixon/McGovern debacle (anyone remember "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper stickers?). So yeah, I'm convinced that RFK would've beaten Nixon and that the country and world would have been quite different. I also believe that JFK would have pulled out of Viet Nam much sooner. On the other hand, sadly, I don't know that MLK would have accomplished anything much different than what he had, and in fact his martyrdom may have been in many ways a good thing for the movement (not a good thing, mind you, it was an evil and heinous act, but one which galvanized people to effect change where RFK was simply cut off and there was no one capable to take up his banner in his stead at the time).

I kind of agree with you on your JFK/RFK assessment. I don't think that without Malcolm X, Martin Luther King would have made the inroads he did. I am from the school of thought that these two individuals bennefited from having one another around. Martin more so than Malcolm because Martin had the ears of the white community that may not agreed with everything he wanted but also did not want to engage in violence/domestic war such as Malcolm suggested (By any means necessary). Basically in most white southerners eyes, he was the lesser of two evils. Martin was proactive, Malcolm was reactive. You slap me, i'll slap back. Unheard of during that time. Though he had every right to. Malcolm didn't instruct followers to go out and kill innocent white children, to rape white women, or to go string up and hang stranded white men...but somehow his message of eye for an eye got twisted into being 'kill whitey'. Another construct of our beloved gov.

[A_Thug_Fessional]

Interesting analogy j. Your premise deals with the source and not net effect. That's pretty much how I see most conflict. We'll readily spend money like sailors on a drinking binge on 'fixing' the net effects of conflict without spending .01 on the cause of it all. Children are not evil. They are impressionable. Children learn wicked behavior from wicked people. Violence and hatred doesn't exist within a vacum, it is a learned behavior. When we as a nation and as a society realize that you can build a mega-super-tight security jail in every city in America and not change the violent nurture of this country...I would argue that if we spent half that money used to build such institutions or privatized education (like the do jails into profitable businesses) i'm sure we'd see a hell of a lot of difference in the violence in America. Could you imagine if major corporations were allowed to 'adopt' high schools or charter/fund them? With the whole premise being 'this is your future workforce'...too often now, we look at inner city kids and rural kids from poorer areas as if they are lost causes...which helps feed the disenfranchised/victim mentality that some of these kids grow up with.