“Society Must Protect the Robbed and Punish The Robber”: MLK Jr’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail

   In a previous blog, St. Martin is referenced regarding our recent corruption. This paper, the Birmingham Jail letter, is pulled out of materials once used in my Introduction to American Government class, taught for ten years at Oakland Community College. Martin is answering critics, since he has some time on his hands while sitting in jail, and he has just answered the argument that civil disobedience breaks the law. King answered with the distinction we call natural right,* the basis of the distinction between just and unjust laws. We like this section because his teachers are the theologians rather than the political philosophers, and he appeals to the health of the soul as did the Brown decision, though in neglect of John Marshall Harlan’s dissent (in Plessy), that our constitution is “color-blind” and neither knows nor tolerates distinctions of race. Martin then turns to the criticism that their non-violent protests are unjust because they incite violence from the unjust:

   In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence But can this assertion be logically made? Isn’t this like condemning the 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 delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to his will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

   Indeed, women perhaps should not wear short skirts, but the raper is the criminal. Indeed, a good way to avoid thieves is to have nothing to steal. Indeed, my sister likes to say, “how’s that workin’ for ya,” and we have not yet been able to ask how perjury is working for her. And how is that “working for” Martin, and for us who let him stand up alone while our representative government with its beyond question honorable FBI committed crimes unanswerable against him, and may indeed have helped to allow him to be murdered? If you want to protect the integrity of the FBI, our suggestion is not that you suppress criticism, but rather, act with integrity, submit to oversight, and indeed learn to oversee yourselves, before the Americans do it for you.

   Beneath all this is a very profound and ironic question of political philosophy which leads us to the teaching that not everyone should literally follow the actions of these heroes. Socrates harmed Athens by giving Athens the occasion to commit the heinous sin of killing the philosopher. We really must take care of our fellow man even in their very immorality, if we would practice the complete and perfect love incarnate in Jesus. At the same time, as Martin notes, “To a degree academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.”

   But as for the measure of right and wrong by material success, we note that the sun shines and rain falls on the good and evil alike. By following justice, it is only apparent that we set aside material advantages. One difference is in the pleasures and health of the soul, allowing us to enjoy the wealth we have more than the rich who are unjust. Beside that, we need less than the unjust, or indeed, need less than people commonly can imagine.

• On King and natural right: Most interesting to us in theory is the attempt of King to appeal from law to natural right on the basis of Christian theology. He reaches into his education, which did not include Leo Strauss, but did include Jefferson and the Declaration.

• 
  

One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are 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 when 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 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. We can never forget that everything 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. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal."

So the soul, eternal law and natural law are the ultimate measure of positive law- Not of course legislation or decree. It is obvious to almost everyone that there can be unjust laws, and this may be the first appearance of natural right.

The way that King states the meaning and relevance of Socrates to Birminghan in 1964 again out of his theological education, is interesting:

Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? On constructive, non-violent tension, King indicates the action of Socrates shown in Plato's Apology:

Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

We say that one who makes his nation more just, or prevents it from doing injustice, does a great service- indeed, at some risk. George Mason- since nations cannot be punished in the next world, they are punished in this.

As with the language of person" from theology, we have to translate what King has just said into the language of the Straussian and Platonic political philosophy: The city- here Athens- holds men under the bondage of authority identifying conventional opinion with the truth itself. The Homeric world was bound to the imagination of many gods, which contains many true things about the soul, however on a false comprehensive basis. "Objective appraisal" is the appeal of Socratic philosophy to the truth about the nature of man, and the health of the soul is the basis of the law itself, in natural right, however this must be adjusted to become presentable in public. In killing Socrates- and here too in attacking it's non-violent gadflies- Athens is unjust as in evident in preventing its own end or fulfillment- the goddess wisdom, one would think, would welcome the pursuit of wisdom! Socrates won't obey the city if it tells him to cease philosophizing, and the way we say this is that he has a First Amendment right regarding first principles, association and speech- it is unjust for the city to prohibit philosophy, or the law against bringing in new divinities and corrupting the youth is unjust as it is here applied. By his death Socrates opens the way or liberty to philosophize, which may be the rose to which all custom, law and civilization itself is the trellis.