What is it about the Beck rally that has people like Jim Wallis and Al Sharpton so upset?

The Restoring Honor Rally:

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin addressed several hundred thousand people on the National Mall and called on the nation to recommit itself to traditional values. And this message has some people up in arms. Al Sharpton accused Beck of trying to hijack King's message. Which is all the more strange since Dr. King's niece, Alveda King, also addressed the rally with a plea for prayer "in the public squares of America and in our schools." Sharpton also issued what appeared to be a veiled threat saying, "You don't know who you're messing with."

Jim Wallis, in an email to his Sojourners supporters, wrote:

"Last spring Fox News commentator Glenn Beck told Christians to leave churches that promoted social justice. To do so, Christians would have to walk out on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 'I Have a Dream' speech too. Dr. King was a social justice Christian, the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides.

Tomorrow marks the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. And, if you’re in Washington, D.C., you’ll see Glenn Beck standing on the historic location of King’s speech – only Mr. Beck will be leading his 'Restoring Honor' rally.

I want to challenge Christians to understand the true significance of King’s speech – for our work on social justice, for racial reconciliation, and for the health of the American church."

What can we make of Jim Wallis' assertion that Dr. King was "the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides." Yes, it's true that Dr. King, a Baptist Minister, was "a social justice Christian." But social justice had a different meaning for Dr. King than it does for Jim Wallis. As Louie Verrechio has noted, "Social justice lies in the fullness of morality as defined by God, not as calculated by majority rule. It is a function of grace, not government." Dr. King understood that. Jim Wallis does not.

Alarmed at the prospect of conservatives calling upon this nation to recommit itself to traditional moral values, many have lost sight of Dr. King's message. Writing for the Associated Press, Philip Elliott and Nafeesa Syeed said that, "Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march."

Does it honestly matter that the crowd was "predominantly white"? Dr. King, in his I Have a Dream speech given on the National Mall on August 28, 1963, said that, "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone....I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.."

If King's message has been hijacked, it has been hijacked by those who have lost sight of the true meaning of social justice and by those who still judge people on the basis of skin color rather than the content of their character.

Former President Jimmy Carter attempting to silence dissent from Obama's socialist policies

In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Now, former President Jimmy Carter, the same man who referred to Barack Obama as a "Black Boy" (see video here) is asserting that the overwhelming portion of opposition to President Obama's socialistic policies is racist in origin (see here).

A convenient way to silence debate and political dissent. Paint the opposition as racist even when there is no evidence of racism. Never mind that ordinary decent Americans, many of whom voted for Barack Obama, are concerned about their future and the future of their children. No, according to former President Carter, most of those who have been expressing their concerns over the direction this country is heading in are racist. This response from Rush Limbaugh is most relevant.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Dream Remains Unfulfilled

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's niece, Dr. Alveda King, hit the nail on the head when she said that, "The election of an African American president sends a powerful and historic message that what was previously unthinkable can become reality...The battle for equal rights has reached a major milestone, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream of full equality remains just a dream as long as unborn children continue to be treated no better than property." (Read Dr. King's full statement here).

It was on August 23, 1963, on the occasion of the Civil Rights March on Washington, that Dr. King had said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." But was the content of Obama's character a real consideration for those who voted for him? How about those in the African-American community? How many voted for Barack Obama simply because he happens to be black? Would Dr. King have approved? For the same reason that a candidate should not be rejected because of the color of his skin, he should not be endorsed solely because of the color of his skin. How many Christians voted for Barack Obama knowing of his radical support for abortion? How about his support for the homosexual agenda?

And what of the content of Barack Obama's character? As Dr. Alveda King correctly noted, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream will never be a reality as long as unborn children are treated "no better than property." And yet, the President-elect supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy up to and including so-called partial-birth abortion (which is actually infanticide). As Bishop Robert J. McManus has said, in a letter which was read in all parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese, "The responsibility of government is to protect the lives of all, especially the weakest and most vulnerable." His Excellency reminded readers of The Catholic Free Press that the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), which President-elect Obama has promised to sign if passed, would require all states to permit 'partial birth' abortions, invalidate any laws protecting physicians' and hospitals' conscientious objection to abortion, and "deny parents the chance to be involved in their minor daughter's abortion decisions." Additionally, the Bishop said that FOCA "would sweep away over 300 federal, state and local laws and regulations that have been passed to protect the life of unborn children" and called its legislative intention "far more radical" than Roe v. Wade.

I share Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream of a nation where the color of skin is irrelevant but the content of a man's character is the decisive issue. But what shall we say about the character of a man who believes that innocent and vulnerable unborn children have no value?

Related reading here.