Yes. Gandhi's non-violent approach came directly from his encounter with the gospels that occurred when he was studying law in England. He never became a Christian, and he did incorporate other religious texts from Hinduism like the Bhagavad Gita, but the Sermon on the Mount remained central to his thinking. King was highly influenced by Gandhi's implementation of this ideal, and he studied the way Gandhi instantiated it. Contemporaries of Gandhi, such as Sri Aurobindo, rejected Gandhi's Christian influences and promoted violence, claiming that it was the proper way to deal with British colonialism.GE Morton wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 4:39 pmGandhi, an Hindu, was motivated by the Christian gospels?Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 1:55 pm The simple fact of the matter is that the kind of non-violent resistance motivated by love, which was the hallmark of Gandhi and King, come straight out of the gospels.
King and Gandhi were both forcefully clear that their movements were different from passive resistance, which as you say does not require any love for one's oppressors. They would remonstrate their followers if they fell into that approach.GE Morton wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 4:39 pmOh, sure it does. Passive resistance is as old as politics, employed by the soldiers' wives in Aristophanes' Lysistrata. Nor does it require, or is typically motivated, by any love for one's enemies. It is a tactic calculated to win public sympathy by forcing the enemy to resort to visible violence, while the protesters remain peaceful.Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 1:55 pmAs King clearly articulates in An Experiment in Love, loving your enemies—especially when they are beating you with a billy club—is not the sort of thing that has any credibility apart from a religious worldview.
It seems like you don't know much at all about King (or Gandhi).
You've already told us about Rosa Parks, and I already admitted that she is a non-religious example. What about "King’s non-violent protests, sit-ins, and marches"? You know, the thing I actually put forward as evidence for my position? The fact that Rosa Parks existed doesn't mean Martin Luther King Jr. didn't.GE Morton wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 4:39 pmThe Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first, and triggering, event of the civil rights protests of the '60s. It was organized by Parks and her colleagues at the local chapter of the NAACP. King, at the time the pastor of one of Montgomery's black churches, quickly signed on, as did the leaders of other black churches in the city.Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 1:55 pmIn any case, your line is beside the point. If you want to make a fine distinction between inspiring and empowering, then I would reiterate the point I already made. It is specifically King’s non-violent protests, sit-ins, and marches that were empowering. We can leave the speeches and sermons aside for the sake of argument.
You implied that the choice is between King appealing to the "American dream" in a speech, or King appealing to the "fear of the wrath of God" in a sermon. In fact King's sermons are not characteristically about the fear of the wrath of God. (I don't know of any that are, but I have not read them all.) This is the sort of misrepresentation that functions as a strawman.GE Morton wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 4:39 pmI've read none of King's sermons. But I've read several of his public speeches, and religious appeals are rare in them, and entirely absent in most. What "fact" did I misrepresent?Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 8th, 2022, 1:55 pmDo you see what your anti-religious bias caused you to do here? It caused you to blatantly misrepresent a historical fact in order to try to score a point against religion. Anyone who has read King's sermons knows that they are not appeals to "the fear of the wrath of God." Either you are especially ignorant of King's preaching, or else your anti-religious bias is hijacking your critical judgment.