In Honor of Martin Luther King Day, Reflections on his Nobel Acceptance Speech:

In Honor of Martin Luther King Day, Reflections on his Nobel Acceptance Speech: Today is Martin Luther King Day (formerly known in my adopted home state of Virginia as “Lee-Jackson-King Day” for Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Martin Luther King, a juxtaposition which I, as a transplanted northerner, always found morbidly amusing).  MLK Day is a banner day for the rule of law as we honor one of the great Americans who staked his life on the principles of human dignity, inherent worth, and justice for all.  

For most of us, when we recall the Reverend Dr. King’s message, we default to the famous “I have a Dream” speech that he gave during the March on Washington in August 1963.  Less familiar is the acceptance speech he gave when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.  It’s a shame, because King’s Nobel Acceptance Speech is no less compelling than “I have a dream,” and in light of current events, even more powerful and relevant.   In particular, as we consider the challenges to freedom of expression, religion, speech, and equality throughout the world, and the inherent problems of governmental corruption, oppression, and predation that lie at the heart of so many current conflicts, it is important to ponder these words (emphasis mine):

I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

He went on to proclaim:

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.  I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. "And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid." I still believe that We Shall overcome!

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.

On December 10, 1964, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King issued a call to action.  Today, as we celebrate his life, work, and legacy, I believe we owe it to ourselves to consider how each and every one of us intends to respond. 

Happy MLK Day!

*The full text of the Nobel Acceptance speech can be accessed at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance_en.html.

**Lee-Jackson-King Day was celebrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1984-2000.

Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law

Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law:  Last week, I participated in a high level round table on strengthening national rule of law capacity.  It was an initiative of the Rule of Law for Development program run by Loyola University Chicago’s School of Law, and was hosted at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.  The participants were fantastic – a select group representing Open Society, the World Bank, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Oxfam and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. 

Everyone was in violent agreement on the importance of strengthening the rule of law in developing and transitioning States.  But they expressed increasing concern over the way in which nations are using “rule of law” to justify suppressing dissent, limiting transparency, and restricting individual freedoms such as free speech and freedom of religion. 

So it was in light of that discussion that I did my usual morning news scan, and the one that really caught my attention was a decision by the highest court in Malaysia that Christians cannot use the word, “Allah.” http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/06/top-malaysian-court-dismisses-allah-case-20146232448487953.html.  Had I not been thinking about the roundtable, I probably would have missed this story as it wasn't widely reported in the U.S.  But the more I read, the more it concerned me.

Basically, what happened is this: Christians in Malaysia have been using “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, in their Malay-language Bibles and other publications for basically as far back as anyone can remember.  And then in 2007, citing concerns about public order, the Malaysian Home Ministry threatened to revoke a Catholic newspaper’s license unless it stopped using the word.    An appeals court later decided that the newspaper had a constitutional right to use the word, and anti-Christian violence ensued.  The high court reversed the ruling.  Apparently, there is a risk of, for want of a better term, brand confusion when talking about God that might cause Muslims to think they can convert.  So Christians are prohibited from using it. 

To be fair to the ruling, the court is trying to clarify that the ban only applies to the newspaper, but the basis for that distinction is really unclear.  It’s arbitrary and has the effect of limiting freedom of the press in addition to limiting free speech -- and belief.  And (potentially) interfaith dialogue that may be important to conflict resolution in a religiously-pluralistic Muslim country that is, like so many others, experiencing increasing tension between religious groups.  Because how do you search for common ground if you aren't allowed to speak the same language or share the same words?

In cases like this one, upholding the rule of law means that the State protects individual rights, with even greater vigor than before, to make a demonstration that they matter.    The non-rule of law approach, disguised as "upholding the rule of law" because it comes out of a court, is to restrict individual rights because there is risk.  It's a balancing act, and Malaysia got it wrong.