Skip to content
Guest Thinkers —

MLK’s Vietnam

Bob Herbert of the New York Times writes that Martin Luther King’s reasoning for contesting the War in Vietnam is valid in Afghanistan, but, like before, few are listening.
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week, for free.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times writes that Martin Luther King’s reasoning for contesting the War in Vietnam is valid in Afghanistan, but, like before, few are listening. “This was on the evening of April 4, 1967, almost exactly 43 years ago. Dr. King told the more than 3,000 people who had crowded into Riverside Church that silence in the face of the horror that was taking place in Vietnam amounted to a ‘betrayal.’ He spoke of both the carnage in the war zone and the toll the war was taking here in the United States. The speech comes to mind now for two reasons: A Tavis Smiley documentary currently airing on PBS revisits the controversy set off by Dr. King’s indictment of “the madness of Vietnam.” And recent news reports show ever-increasing evidence that we have ensnared ourselves in a mad and tragic venture in Afghanistan.”

Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week, for free.
Related
A bearded man wearing glasses and a plaid shirt speaks with a microphone clipped to his collar in front of a purple background with white dots.
The Well
How Rainn Wilson discovered sacredness
The hospital where Rainn Wilson’s wife and son nearly died became his own personal holy site. There, he discovered that the sacred can exist in places we least expect it. During his talk at A Night of Awe and Wonder, he explained how the awe we feel in moments of courage and love is moral beauty — and following it might be the start of our spiritual revolution.
▸
13 min
—
with
Rainn Wilson
Up Next
Guest Thinkers
Malleable Morality
Scientists have blocked cell activity in the brain’s moral reasoning region inducing people to use purely consequential reasoning rather than consider moral principles.