I accidentally listened to a good bit of the first half before realizing it was from 2002.

Remember, kids: True civil disobedience means you go to jail. Listen to Uncle Henry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau).

No having Mommy and Daddy's lawyer get you out.

Is this under some onerous copyright, like other speeches of his?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_dispute

i guess i'm fit to live, but i could totally envision a cold logical rationalist who simply observes a world and maintains complete relativism and i wouldn't feel comfortable making claims on whether or not i think that person should be alive or not.

I guess you had to be there...

The qoute in the text above starts at 52:56

Civilization exists basically because people do not do this. Imagine if everyone refused to submit to anything they considered wrong, untrue, or unjust, and bear in mind that there are many different versions of what true, right, and just are.

It would mean that King's opponents should have fought to the death to oppose him and the federal government. Perhaps better they accepted what they may still have considered an injustice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

#7 Cicada:

It would mean that King's opponents should have fought to the death to oppose him and the federal government. Perhaps better they accepted what they may still have considered an injustice?

Well, some of them fought to some of our deaths, including King's, but most of them knew; they knew segregation based on race was wrong; in their hearts the bigots knew. They just couldn't get away with it any longer. They knew better.

"- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

well thats a pretty short list i'd say that the mormons, trekkies, furries, skateboarders, astronauts, feminists, brown coats, and hippies would still be around...

but would they speak out?

#7, I think you have that backwards. We are civilized only because people of good conscience sometimes stand up and say "No".

@11 Consider, though, what happens if everyone presumed their consciences were good, and refused to back down.

"...or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house."

Please don't stab my house. :(

I think first we need to work on getting people to stop killing for their beliefs.

#7 cicada:

imagine if everyone refused to submit to anything they considered wrong, untrue, or unjust, and bear in mind that there are many different versions of what true, right, and just are.

He didn't say that. He said that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live. (emphasis mine, obviously).

The bigots who opposed him and killed him may have had cause to follow his words in some other area of their lives, but they did not find it in the cause of bigotry. This shows not that they are cowards (though you could find many other reasons to call them that), or that they are truly dead (though many now are), but that they are liars, claiming their cause is worthwhile when they know it is not.

Many ordinary people do find a cause to die for. For the vast majority of us it's our wives, our husbands, our children. For some there are many causes they would die for.

@ #15, Cory- Then we still have the problem, albeit with fewer cases of deadly conflict. When person A's cause they'll die for is mutually incompatible with equally ardent person B's, is it better for one to just knuckle under, or for there to be a body in the street?

I think the major problem is that too many people DO have causes they would die for. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then I'd say dieing to further a cause is one of the worst things you could do. How can you continue to help and support the cause if you're dead? There are exceptions of course (like Dr. King himself), but the vast majority of people who die for a cause do not become martyrs, and really contribute little to the advancement of that cause. We need people around to spread the word, petition, strike down opposing views, and push for change.

If you get a bunch of people who think their belief is worth dieing for, then you end up with the Middle East terrorist situation.

http://www.archive.org/download/dn2002-1119/dn2002-1119-1.ogg

For people who don't hate freedom :)

When a football coach psyches up his team with words that inspire them to "give 110%, never give up, go the distance, etc.", those words aren't for the opposing team to hear and be inspired by also.

Cory @ 15: "Many ordinary people do find a cause to die for. For the vast majority of us it's our wives, our husbands, our children. For some there are many causes they would die for."

That right there may be the problem for a lot of people. What do you do when there is more than one cause that you would die for, and they conflict with each other? Do you stand up for what you believe is morally right and risk leaving your children without a parent? Do you put protecting your family first and hope someone else will change the world? It's a difficult question to answer.

There's no difference in risking your life fighting in a war and risking your life fighting for justice and peace.

@ROB1000
I disagree wholeheartedly. Are you familiar with Mr. Fish? He's a political cartoonist, and earlier this month, he wrote this cartoon (which is really just a statement) about the very real difference between waging war and waging peace.