When the right wing wants to find a black person to support their ridiculous attempts to turn Martin Luther King into a conservative, they usually go for his deranged niece Alveda. But now the Worldnetdaily has found another one, Bishop Council Nedd II. And he’s got some really bad arguments and dishonest framing at his disposal.
Bishop Nedd believes that if King had lived many more years, he would have been fairly conservative and would have spent more time in the pulpit than marching for causes.
“He comes from the same era as my father, so I think he would probably be a fairly conservative individual. I think that he would still be involved in pastoral ministry or probably retired from it by this point. He was first and foremost a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t think he was necessarily interested in the political pandering that you see people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do. He was on a mission, and the mission was to march for civil rights. But he never gave up his calling as a minister of the gospel, and his ministry was evident in his approach that he took to try to achieve civil rights for all Americans,” he said.
King is the same age as his father so he would have ended up believing as his father did. Because every single person from any given generation has exactly the same views. Seriously, that’s an astonishingly stupid argument. And of course, he ignores the fact that King was not just a civil rights activist. In fact, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, he turned much of his attention to economic justice and anti-war activism.He was unabashedly a democratic socialist who demanded a guaranteed minimum income and a guaranteed job for every American. Only two types of people could possibly claim that he would have turned out to be a conservative: the abysmally ignorant or the incredibly dishonest.
“Gay is not the new black. There are lots of people who lived and died and suffered merely because of race. Any individual who happens to be homosexual, they’re already covered under the law because of their color, because of their sexuality, because of various other things. It’s not a separate classification and personally I’m offended by it.”
I’m offended by that kind of stupidity. No, gay people are not covered under the law because of their sexuality except in a minority of states. That’s the whole point of wanting to add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination laws. Seriously, where do they find these morons?