Let's start off with the founders were very familiar with the work of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, since it would cause human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.
In short, too many rights can create chaos. The founders did not want anarchy (or what they would call "democracy"). In fact, they saw republican systems as being somewhat more restrained, although the French revolution would prove that to be a fallacious belief.
On the other hand, one of the things tied in with natural rights is a right to life, which unlike the current one which ends at birth, this one BEGINS with birth. Natural rights begin with existence. The Declaration of Independence says that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness."
John Locke stated the right to life as being that everyone has a right to life once created. The fundamental law of nature is
that human life, as much as possible, should be preserved. We could have a longer discussion of Locke, but his ideas are not supportive of a belief that natural law or natural rights would allow for the ownership of weapons. In fact, I would assert they seriously contradict that belief.
Contemporary statements at the time of the US's nascence show that the doctrine of self-defence required that force was used as a last resort and only allowed for as much force as was reasonably necessary to stop any threat. If one exceeded that level of force, then the person who was attacked became the aggressor [1]
The Constitution provides the right not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". While one can argue that acts of "self-defence" are not governmental actions, the way that the government addresses the use of that doctrine ARE.
The real issue when one claims a right, is what authority backs up that assertion? In the case of life, there are many international treaties that say killing without extraordinary justification is wrong. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US is a signatory, states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Recently, the United Nations human rights committees overseeing the United States' obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Convention to End all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) meeting in Geneva Switzerland both cited rampant gun violence in the United States as a violation of our government’s duty to effectively protect the right to life. Women, children and minorities were cited as disproportionately affected groups. Both treaties have been ratified by the U.S. Senate binding the US government to act.
Both committees recommended expanded background checks covering all private firearm transfers. Both also expressed concern about the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws stating that these laws are used to “circumvent the limits of legitimate self-defense in violation of [the U.S. government's] duty to protect life”, and requested review of those laws “to remove far-reaching immunity and ensure strict adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality when deadly force is used for self-defense.”
Albert Camus said "bloodthirsty laws, make bloodthirsty customs." While he was speaking specifically about state-sponsored executions, the tendency goes like this: once the citizens of the state allow their government to discipline its citizens by killing them, then killing citizens becomes a custom; the punishment becomes, then, customary, in Camus' sense of the word. The laws rise from the consent of the governed, and once in place, they start to do their job: determine the culture of the country. The state's custom then becomes a little more bloodthirsty because the state's laws allow us to slake our thirst for blood.
The real issue here is that rather than "gun rights", any proper appeal to natural law or fundamental law would more likely hold that the right to life is far more important than someone's need to own a gun. In fact, US law in recent times has perverted many concepts held in civilised nations regarding self-defence, right to life, and even the rule of law.
[1] Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws
of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private
Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Monday, December 16, 2013
What do the Gun-Rights Advocates Mean by "Right?"
The "right" these gun nuts keep talking about is this:
right to life
right to self defense (to protect life)
right to own a particular inanimate object called a gun
This bizarre and wild jump from the second proposition to the third is what they refer to as "the right." It's total made-up bullshit. Furthermore the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it. They hijacked the amendment for their crazy argument and repeated it a million times until it took on a life of its own. But, it just ain't so. There is no "right" to own guns.
right to life
right to self defense (to protect life)
right to own a particular inanimate object called a gun
This bizarre and wild jump from the second proposition to the third is what they refer to as "the right." It's total made-up bullshit. Furthermore the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it. They hijacked the amendment for their crazy argument and repeated it a million times until it took on a life of its own. But, it just ain't so. There is no "right" to own guns.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
OK, you want to liken gun rights to Civil rights for gays, blacks, etcetera....
Betty Bowers hits the nail on the head with this one:
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Gun Owners: We're Just Like Rosa Parks (Except Armed)
Kim Stolfer compares his crusade to the Civil Rights movement.The chairman of Firearm Owners Against Crime, said at a Capitol rally this morning that in 1954, Rosa Parks stood up for her constitutional rights — as many gun owners do today.Stolfer, one of more than a half-dozen speakers at the rally, said afterward that there is a “dawning realization among gun owners across the nation that their rights have been eviscerated, and like the civil rights movement, they are determined to see them restored.”
Where is the oppression of gun owners? Aren't they often the ones doing the oppressing? Isn't that the very reason for gun control laws in the first place?
No, what Stolfer's doing here is a typical trick of the gun-rights argument. They often try to turn the tables and accuse their opponents of exactly what they themselves are guilty of. If anyone is oppressed here it's the non-gun-owning public. They are the victims of gun owners gone berserk and the terribly gun availability to criminals in the US.
Gun rights fanatics love to use the feigned position of "grandiose victimism." Poor oppressed people they are, denied their freedom and rights, at least that's what they pretend. The truth is they are the aggressive infringers of other people's rights.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Of Numb Nuts and Tea Baggers
I couldn't help but cringe, and then laugh, at this particular news article on the first day of Black History month.
It makes it so very clear exactly why it is we NEED to have a month that focuses on the actual history, and not the revisionist history of this aspect of the United States and of the world's history.
I cringed, because the New Jersey Governor did indeed make a mistake in comparing the fight for gay equality and racial equality. Although, to be fair to the governor, there have been some terrible instances of similar violence by those who are the haters and the violent defenders of inequality in the status quo, in other words the reactionaries among conservatives.
There have been beatings and killings of people because of race, and beatings and rapes and killings of people for being gay in human history, and specifically in the history of this country.
I laughed, however, because there does seem to be a verbal fascination with testicles in the terms selected by the right. "Numb nuts" in my understanding was a testicular reference, in modern slang, an impression confirmed by the quite vulgar but edgy urban dictionary.
And it was the right that first selected the term tea bagger as a self-description for the members of the tea party, because of their wearing of tea bags stapled to hats and other items of clothing. Some, but by no means all of the tea partiers took exception to the term after the vulgar slang meaning of tea bagging became more widely known. There are those among the more prudish right who refuse to abandon the term because to do so would somehow be to give ground to those vulgar people who embrace a wider vocabulary of sexual activity.
I applaud Christie for having the courage to be a moderate Republican, one who favors the New Jersey gun control laws, and believes we need to take steps to reduce illegal guns and to reduce the amount of gun violence that endangers law enforcement. I applaud Christie for his position against Islamophobia on the right, particularly as regarded a judge in New Jersey who was muslim. I give Christie huge credit for recognizing the validity of the science and the reality of climate change as a serious problem for the entire planet. And I give Christie credit for being sane and reasonable on the topic of homosexuality as a sexual orientation with which one is born.
I credit Christie for at least supporting civil unions for same sex couples, but I'm afraid he IS supporting a position that is inherently unequal. It is as unequal to deny people the right to marry based on their gender as it was to have miscegenation laws which forbade people marrying on the basis of gender. It is as unequal to support a separate but equal legally binding contractual committed relationship status that is separate but equal to marriage as it was to have segregation by race. Equal means equal and the same, not separate and mostly kinda sorta equivalent but not the same.
The movement for equality among human beings without discrimination for gender or orientation should move forward learning the lessons of history that came out of the movement for racial equality, the lesson that separate but similar is never equal. Only equal provision under the law is equal.
But huge props to the Governor of New Jersey for recognizing that homosexuals are not criminals and sinners, unlike the far right wing nuts who have hijacked the Republican party, the conservatives who wish us to be a less free society, reminiscent of the reactionary oppression of fifty years or more ago.
That was no golden age of freedom, but it is the age that the most reactionary right idolizes.
From NBC New York.com:
It makes it so very clear exactly why it is we NEED to have a month that focuses on the actual history, and not the revisionist history of this aspect of the United States and of the world's history.
I cringed, because the New Jersey Governor did indeed make a mistake in comparing the fight for gay equality and racial equality. Although, to be fair to the governor, there have been some terrible instances of similar violence by those who are the haters and the violent defenders of inequality in the status quo, in other words the reactionaries among conservatives.
There have been beatings and killings of people because of race, and beatings and rapes and killings of people for being gay in human history, and specifically in the history of this country.
I laughed, however, because there does seem to be a verbal fascination with testicles in the terms selected by the right. "Numb nuts" in my understanding was a testicular reference, in modern slang, an impression confirmed by the quite vulgar but edgy urban dictionary.
And it was the right that first selected the term tea bagger as a self-description for the members of the tea party, because of their wearing of tea bags stapled to hats and other items of clothing. Some, but by no means all of the tea partiers took exception to the term after the vulgar slang meaning of tea bagging became more widely known. There are those among the more prudish right who refuse to abandon the term because to do so would somehow be to give ground to those vulgar people who embrace a wider vocabulary of sexual activity.
I applaud Christie for having the courage to be a moderate Republican, one who favors the New Jersey gun control laws, and believes we need to take steps to reduce illegal guns and to reduce the amount of gun violence that endangers law enforcement. I applaud Christie for his position against Islamophobia on the right, particularly as regarded a judge in New Jersey who was muslim. I give Christie huge credit for recognizing the validity of the science and the reality of climate change as a serious problem for the entire planet. And I give Christie credit for being sane and reasonable on the topic of homosexuality as a sexual orientation with which one is born.
I credit Christie for at least supporting civil unions for same sex couples, but I'm afraid he IS supporting a position that is inherently unequal. It is as unequal to deny people the right to marry based on their gender as it was to have miscegenation laws which forbade people marrying on the basis of gender. It is as unequal to support a separate but equal legally binding contractual committed relationship status that is separate but equal to marriage as it was to have segregation by race. Equal means equal and the same, not separate and mostly kinda sorta equivalent but not the same.
The movement for equality among human beings without discrimination for gender or orientation should move forward learning the lessons of history that came out of the movement for racial equality, the lesson that separate but similar is never equal. Only equal provision under the law is equal.
But huge props to the Governor of New Jersey for recognizing that homosexuals are not criminals and sinners, unlike the far right wing nuts who have hijacked the Republican party, the conservatives who wish us to be a less free society, reminiscent of the reactionary oppression of fifty years or more ago.
That was no golden age of freedom, but it is the age that the most reactionary right idolizes.
From NBC New York.com:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has apologized for a remark about civil rights but says he's not sorry for using a slang term to describe a lawmaker who compared him to segregationist Southern governors.The Republican spoke Tuesday night during TownSquare Media's "Ask the Governor" program on radio station New Jersey 101.5 FM.
He apologized to anyone offended by his comment that people in the civil rights struggle would have been happier to have the matter settled by public vote rather than by dying in the streets.
He was comparing civil rights to the fight for gay marriage.
But he didn't back down from calling Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora "numb nuts" after the lawmaker compared him to former Govs. George Wallace and Lester Maddox.
Christie says his late mother used the term.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Rights
There is all this talk about claiming rights which are either natural or god given, which is fairly nonsensical since anyone can claim anything as a right. The real hitch is enforcing that right.
Not to mention the idea that a right represents can change with time, such as the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which is supposed to protect the institution of the Militia, but has been perverted to some personal right to firearms outside the context of that right.
I ask does a similar concept of "gun rights" exist in other common law jurisdictions, yet no one can provide an analogue.
Greg points to state constitutions, but State Constitutions can expand upon the right--they cannot subtract from the right.
I decided to look up The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains many interesting rights such as
Article 3's Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 27: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
But, despite all the wonderful rights I've mentioned "Gun rights" and "a right to armed self-defence" is conspicuously absent.
Why is this? Is it because those rights do not follow the general scheme of the Declaration:
If we go by this document, the US Constitution allows for the rule of law (if it existed in the US) as a buttress to the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not arms.The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352
The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.
The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.
iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.
iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.
v. The common law methodology.
vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.
vii. An independent judiciary.
viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.
ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.
So, if one claims a right, one needs a source to back up that right and a legal basis for claiming that right. Not to mention for it to truly be effective, that right needs to be enforcable under the legal system.
If we are getting into the Second Amendment, post-Heller, federal and state courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to a wide variety of firearms laws nationwide. As discussed in Section IV below, the majority of Second Amendment challenges have been raised in criminal cases. These challenges have been largely unsuccessful, as courts have found that the Second Amendment is consistent with numerous federal and state criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions, the nation’s lower courts have been clogged with a substantial volume of Second Amendment litigation, despite the fact that most, if not all, federal, state and local firearms laws do not prevent a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense, and thus, would satisfy the Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases.
Not to mention the idea that a right represents can change with time, such as the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which is supposed to protect the institution of the Militia, but has been perverted to some personal right to firearms outside the context of that right.
I ask does a similar concept of "gun rights" exist in other common law jurisdictions, yet no one can provide an analogue.
Greg points to state constitutions, but State Constitutions can expand upon the right--they cannot subtract from the right.
I decided to look up The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains many interesting rights such as
Article 3's Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 27: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
But, despite all the wonderful rights I've mentioned "Gun rights" and "a right to armed self-defence" is conspicuously absent.
Why is this? Is it because those rights do not follow the general scheme of the Declaration:
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
If we go by this document, the US Constitution allows for the rule of law (if it existed in the US) as a buttress to the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not arms.The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352
"The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King".
The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.
The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.
iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.
iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.
v. The common law methodology.
vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.
vii. An independent judiciary.
viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.
ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.
So, if one claims a right, one needs a source to back up that right and a legal basis for claiming that right. Not to mention for it to truly be effective, that right needs to be enforcable under the legal system.
If we are getting into the Second Amendment, post-Heller, federal and state courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to a wide variety of firearms laws nationwide. As discussed in Section IV below, the majority of Second Amendment challenges have been raised in criminal cases. These challenges have been largely unsuccessful, as courts have found that the Second Amendment is consistent with numerous federal and state criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions, the nation’s lower courts have been clogged with a substantial volume of Second Amendment litigation, despite the fact that most, if not all, federal, state and local firearms laws do not prevent a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense, and thus, would satisfy the Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
RIP, Rev. Shuttlesworth
We honor you for the example you set of non-violent civil disobedience and protest
I am posting this obit piece for a couple of reasons.
The first is because the historic content demonstrates the significant difference between the black civil rights movement in this country, and the Tea Party, and the Wall Street protests. The protesters here are not armed, there is no implied or expressed threat of retaliation with violence against authority, only 1st Amendment action.
The second is because I have written before about racist attitudes, both subtle and overt. Being reminded of this history shapes the context in which we evaluate current events and attitudes of tolerance - and intolerance - like the Niggerhead / Perry controversy, or the political code language that equates urban thugs predominantly with blacks living in poverty-stricken sections of our cities.
Rest in peace, Reverend, and thank you for your courage, activism, and leadership. The nation is a better place because of your sacrifices and suffering.
From the AP and MSNBC.com:
Dave Martin / AP file 
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, who was bombed, beaten and repeatedly arrested in the fight for civil rights and hailed by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for his courage and energy, has died. He was 89. Princeton Baptist Medical Center spokeswoman Jennifer Dodd confirmed he died at the Birmingham hospital Wednesday morning..
Shuttlesworth, a former truck driver who studied religion at night, became pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., in 1953 and soon was an outspoken leader in the fight for racial equality.
"My church was a beehive," Shuttlesworth once said. "I made the movement. I made the challenge. Birmingham was the citadel of segregation, and the people wanted to march."
AP
In his 1963 book "Why We Can't Wait," King called Shuttlesworth "one of the nation's the most courageous freedom fighters ... a wiry, energetic and indomitable man."
He survived a 1956 bombing, an assault during a 1957 demonstration, chest injuries when Birmingham authorities turned fire hoses on demonstrators in 1963, and countless arrests.
"I went to jail 30 or 40 times, not for fighting or stealing or drugs," Shuttlesworth told grade school students in 1997. "I went to jail for a good thing, trying to make a difference."
And in November 2008, Shuttlesworth watched from a hospital bed as Sen. Barack Obama was elected the nation's first African-American president. The year before, Obama had pushed Shuttlesworth's wheelchair across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma during a commemoration of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march.
In the early 1960s, Shuttlesworth had invited King back to Birmingham. Televised scenes of police dogs and fire hoses being turned on black marchers, including children, in spring 1963 helped the rest of the nation grasp the depth of racial animosity in the Deep South.
Referring to the city's notoriously racist safety commissioner, Shuttlesworth would tell followers, "We're telling ol' 'Bull' Connor right here tonight that we're on the march and we're not going to stop marching until we get our rights."According to a May 1963 New York Times profile of Shuttlesworth, Connor responded to the word Shuttlesworth had been injured by the spray of fire hoses by saying: "I'm sorry I missed it. ... I wish they'd carried him away in a hearse."
While King went on to international fame, Shuttlesworth was relatively little known outside Alabama. But he was a key figure in Spike Lee's 1997 documentary, "4 Little Girls," about the September 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four black children. PhotoBlog: Pictures of Fred Shuttlesworth
He also gained attention in Diane McWhorter's book "Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution," which won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002.
Shuttlesworth was born March 18, 1922, near Montgomery and grew up in Birmingham.
As a child, he knew he would either be a minister or a doctor and by 1943, he decided to enter the ministry. He began taking theological courses at night while working as a truck driver and cement worker during the day. He was licensed to preach in 1944 and ordained in 1948.
It was 1954 when King, then a pastor in Montgomery, came to Birmingham to give a speech and asked to stop by Bethel Baptist and meet Shuttlesworth. Shuttlesworth already knew the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who became a key aide to King, as they both attended Alabama State College, later known as Selma University.
Meanwhile, in Montgomery, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus in late 1955, prompting the boycott led by King that gave new life to the civil rights movement.
In January 1956, King's Montgomery home was bombed while he attended a rally. Eleven months later, on Christmas night 1956, 16 sticks of dynamite were detonated outside Shuttlesworth's bedroom as he slept at the Bethel Baptist parsonage. No one was injured in either bombing, although shards of glass and wood pierced Shuttleworth's coat and hat, which were hanging on a hook.
In 1957, he was beaten by a mob when he tried to enroll two of his children in an all-white school in Birmingham.
In Cincinnati, Shuttlesworth left Revelation Baptist Church and became pastor of the Greater New Light Baptist Church in 1966. He also founded a foundation to help low-income people make down payments on homes.
In 2004, he was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for about three months. The troubled organization's board had suspended Shuttlesworth without giving a reason after he tried to fire a longtime official. He resigned, saying board members tried to micromanage the organization.
He was 84 when he retired as the pastor of Greater New Light in 2006. "The best thing we can do is be a servant of God," he said in his final sermon. "It does good to stand up and serve others."
The first is because the historic content demonstrates the significant difference between the black civil rights movement in this country, and the Tea Party, and the Wall Street protests. The protesters here are not armed, there is no implied or expressed threat of retaliation with violence against authority, only 1st Amendment action.
The second is because I have written before about racist attitudes, both subtle and overt. Being reminded of this history shapes the context in which we evaluate current events and attitudes of tolerance - and intolerance - like the Niggerhead / Perry controversy, or the political code language that equates urban thugs predominantly with blacks living in poverty-stricken sections of our cities.
Rest in peace, Reverend, and thank you for your courage, activism, and leadership. The nation is a better place because of your sacrifices and suffering.
From the AP and MSNBC.com:
Civil rights leader Shuttlesworth dies
Truck driver became pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham
Civil rights activist Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who was hailed by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for his courage and energy, died Wednesday.
Shuttlesworth, a former truck driver who studied religion at night, became pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., in 1953 and soon was an outspoken leader in the fight for racial equality.
"My church was a beehive," Shuttlesworth once said. "I made the movement. I made the challenge. Birmingham was the citadel of segregation, and the people wanted to march."
Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth right, escorts Dwight Armstrong, 9, and his brother Floyd, 11, from the Graymont Elementary School in Birmingham, Ala, Sept. 9, 1963. State troopers, on order from the governor, opened the school but turned the African Americans away.
He survived a 1956 bombing, an assault during a 1957 demonstration, chest injuries when Birmingham authorities turned fire hoses on demonstrators in 1963, and countless arrests.
"I went to jail 30 or 40 times, not for fighting or stealing or drugs," Shuttlesworth told grade school students in 1997. "I went to jail for a good thing, trying to make a difference."
And in November 2008, Shuttlesworth watched from a hospital bed as Sen. Barack Obama was elected the nation's first African-American president. The year before, Obama had pushed Shuttlesworth's wheelchair across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma during a commemoration of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march.
In the early 1960s, Shuttlesworth had invited King back to Birmingham. Televised scenes of police dogs and fire hoses being turned on black marchers, including children, in spring 1963 helped the rest of the nation grasp the depth of racial animosity in the Deep South.
Referring to the city's notoriously racist safety commissioner, Shuttlesworth would tell followers, "We're telling ol' 'Bull' Connor right here tonight that we're on the march and we're not going to stop marching until we get our rights."According to a May 1963 New York Times profile of Shuttlesworth, Connor responded to the word Shuttlesworth had been injured by the spray of fire hoses by saying: "I'm sorry I missed it. ... I wish they'd carried him away in a hearse."
While King went on to international fame, Shuttlesworth was relatively little known outside Alabama. But he was a key figure in Spike Lee's 1997 documentary, "4 Little Girls," about the September 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four black children. PhotoBlog: Pictures of Fred Shuttlesworth
He also gained attention in Diane McWhorter's book "Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution," which won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002.
Shuttlesworth was born March 18, 1922, near Montgomery and grew up in Birmingham.
As a child, he knew he would either be a minister or a doctor and by 1943, he decided to enter the ministry. He began taking theological courses at night while working as a truck driver and cement worker during the day. He was licensed to preach in 1944 and ordained in 1948.
It was 1954 when King, then a pastor in Montgomery, came to Birmingham to give a speech and asked to stop by Bethel Baptist and meet Shuttlesworth. Shuttlesworth already knew the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who became a key aide to King, as they both attended Alabama State College, later known as Selma University.
Meanwhile, in Montgomery, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus in late 1955, prompting the boycott led by King that gave new life to the civil rights movement.
In January 1956, King's Montgomery home was bombed while he attended a rally. Eleven months later, on Christmas night 1956, 16 sticks of dynamite were detonated outside Shuttlesworth's bedroom as he slept at the Bethel Baptist parsonage. No one was injured in either bombing, although shards of glass and wood pierced Shuttleworth's coat and hat, which were hanging on a hook.
In 1957, he was beaten by a mob when he tried to enroll two of his children in an all-white school in Birmingham.
In Cincinnati, Shuttlesworth left Revelation Baptist Church and became pastor of the Greater New Light Baptist Church in 1966. He also founded a foundation to help low-income people make down payments on homes.
In 2004, he was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for about three months. The troubled organization's board had suspended Shuttlesworth without giving a reason after he tried to fire a longtime official. He resigned, saying board members tried to micromanage the organization.
He was 84 when he retired as the pastor of Greater New Light in 2006. "The best thing we can do is be a servant of God," he said in his final sermon. "It does good to stand up and serve others."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)