Saturday, March 24, 2012

WWMLKS? (What Would MLK Say?)

I just learned today that Martin Luther King Jr. defined peace slightly differently that I do here on the ole' front page.  I am troubled by this, of course and will take his suggestions under advisement.

Don't you wish he hadn't been sculpted in such
a menacing, scowling posture?
It seems that MLK had two different definitions of peace.  The lower, or "passive" peace is similar to my understanding of peace:  The capacity to live with conflict in our midst.

The higher, and more desirable peace is an "active" peace.  Active peace is one in which conflict is replaced by justice.

I will need to stew on this, and as I am a contemplative mover when it comes to meta-understandings, it may take me a decade or so to change my mind.  However, the question comes down to this:

Is humanity capable of forming a truly just society, or is tolerable conflict as good as we can hope for?

Maybe I am too content to settle for incremental gains?

No comments: