I feel that he attacked the clergy quite frequently in the section.
An inherent attack was through the examples Jason mentioned previously because it indicates the clergymen’s evident simpleness due to the fact that they cannot distinguish between civil disobedience and anarchy. Their straightforwardness is attacked further with King implying that the clergy, the supposed moral leaders, classify justice and injustice to be the same. Wisely: In my opinion, this section is mostly King’s introduction of the idea that moral concerns are reflected in laws because of his scrutiny of just and unjust laws. He states the former protects the man and can be applied to anybody. Whereas, unjust laws degrades the man and is limited to affect certain classes of people. He makes a variety of legal distinctions to illustrate his legal mind.
He makes a distinction between what a real democracy and a fake system that restricts African Americans from voting. He also points out the difference between a law’s content and how it should be applied. In general, he clarifies on the topic of what it means to be a just and unjust law.TTS: Marvelous responses! Now for the next one which starts off with King saying I must make two honest confessions and ends with now this approach is being termed extremist.Jason: This section marks the beginning of King’s release of his restraint.
Compared to previously where he was overly calm, King becomes more willing to directly challenge his audience. Additionally, his frequent use of the verb “must” demonstrates that he is not persuading his audience to take action, but he is insisting them to take action.Viphu: In particular, King’s subject becomes more broad and abstract with his particular focus on history, the passage of time, and extremism. King starts to name the white moderate as his primary antagonist which makes it known that he is no longer pretending that the clergymen are his entire audience.
The shift to a more broad and abstract focus confirms that the scope that he is writing for is a world larger than that of Birmingham.Wisely: What I see is that his focus in this section is mainly on the nature of extremism. He takes great trouble to talk about threats like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X to act as a warning to his audience that those who are discouraged from nonviolent action will eventually turn to violent action. He wants moderates to know that they need to facilitate nonviolent action by supporting its push for justice so that they can avoid violence. In a way, his approach to provoking actions is an indirect blackmail.
