During the tumult of the 1960's, the American character was tested in extraordinary ways-none more pressing than the rightful clamor for civil rights in Black community. Existing laws institutionalized the second class citizenry in many quarters and courts were very unsympathetic to the obvious injustices coursing through the American experience. Laws were aplenty-most of which served to maintain the unjust status quo. Those seeking reform had a variety of options open when challenging these wrongs. Consider the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr. How did Dr. King arrive at a philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience to the inequalities of his day? Why did he choose this method of structural challenge over the other options? Dr. King could have gone in very different directions. Why did he passionately urge his followers to lay down the sword, to accept suffering and humiliation rather than strike his errant and hateful neighbor, and to willingly and very humbly experience the jail cell for his alleged crimes? As King relates: "I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I've seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many white citizens' councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear." By examining the man, his life and his work, both written and oratorical, the author concludes that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was in fact a Thomist through and through. Not a Thomist on all things, but as to his understanding of law and its corresponding obligation or lack thereof, King is the ultimate Thomist. In his letters and writings, texts and speeches, King is aregular advocate of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. A reader can feel the respect that King has for Thomist principles, and in a sense, Thomism is the "antidote" against the ravages of modernity. King's theory of civil disobedience classically adheres to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Amazingly, he even tells us about his allegiance to the philosophy of St. Thomas. That is what this work is all about-a discourse on and a discernment into the compatibility of both men and a revelation that once again, St. Thomas had the answers long before the problem ever emerged.
|Publisher:||Carolina Academic Press|
|Product dimensions:||5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 0.40(d)|
About the Author
Charles Nemeth is the Director of Graduate Criminal Justice as well as a professor of Professional Studies at the California University of Pennsylvania.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Aquinas and King: A Discourse on Civil Disobedience based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
In this thoughtful and succinct study, Nemeth (California Univ. of Pennsylvania) attempts to synthesize the social, religious, and legal thought of St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King, Jr., regarding civil disobedience and the need for ¿an objective moral order¿ (p. 90). In the first two chapters, the nature of law is explained, especially the categories of Thomistic legal thinking, as well as the meaning of civil disobedience. Chapters three and four argue for the compatibility of civil disobedience and the Christian life. The ¿radical¿ aspect of the interpretation suggests that an unjust law should not be obeyed. The final chapter proposes areas of agreement between Aquinas and King regarding civil disobedience. The book provides an engaging and lucid introduction to Aquinas on law. Unfortunately, the analysis of King¿s thought is less discerning, and fails to appreciate the overriding influence of Boston Personalism upon his views of social and political life. The author is correct to suggest both Aquinas and King ¿deliver an ethical construct that mirrors human life¿ (p. 102); however, the divergence between Aquinas and King may be greater than the proposed convergence.