Religion, Morality, and Hope Theme Analysis

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s approach to racial equality in Why We Can’t Wait is rooted in his religious and moral beliefs. As a Christian minister, he thinks about racial inequality as a problem that the Christian church has an obligation to address. Because the Christian gospel preaches the value of kindness, love, and brotherhood, Dr. King sees it as an ideal basis for navigating issues of oppression and inequality. In fact, it is most likely because of his strong religious beliefs that he was able to maintain an unflappable sense of moral conviction. When the Birmingham government filed an injunction ordering the movement to stop demonstrating until their case was argued in court, Dr. King decided to break the law—a difficult decision, given that a major point of the campaign was to convince people to follow the law (by adhering to the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling on segregation). Faced with this conundrum, Dr. King called on his strong moral compass, which told him that breaking an unjust law is not only permissible, but a moral responsibility. He explains his thinking in a letter to white clergymen about the church’s duty to support equality; the simple fact that he expresses these ideas in a letter about the church suggests that his moral beliefs are directly tied to his religious beliefs. To that end, the connection between religion and morality is most likely why Dr. King was able to maintain such a strong sense of hope in the face of violence and oppression. It becomes clear, then, that religion—or at least a strong moral code—often motivates and emotionally sustains people by helping them stick to their convictions.

Dr. King’s religious beliefs gave him the strength to face adversity because they allowed him to squarely face the ugliness of the world without completely losing heart. His entire approach to activism was rooted in his Christian values, as he believed that the United States is a place where compassion and “Christian forgiveness” have been “written into the minds and hearts of good men.” The idea of “Christian forgiveness” has to do with empathy and the ability to show kindness, but it also implies that there are wrongs that need to be forgiven in the first place. In other words, U.S. history is full of some serious moral failures—like, for instance, the entire institution of slavery. But Dr. King thinks it’s within the nation’s ability to move on from such ugliness, believing that inherently religious values like love, kindness, and forgiveness are even more deeply rooted than the country’s racist and tragic history. He’s therefore able to view things like racial equality as inevitable, even if it seems like a distant reality. To put it another way, his religious and moral values make it easier for him to embody hope. And yet, his belief in the nation’s Christian values doesn’t mean that he overlooks the roiling hatred and bigotry that plagues the nation—instead, he views these values as resources that can be used to actively resist unjust laws. He acknowledges the country’s problems and chooses to believe they aren’t what define the United States. Rather, he thinks the nation is great precisely because it’s well-positioned to challenge such hatred and division.

To that end, Dr. King believes there’s a moral responsibility to resist injustice at all costs, especially for Christians. When he went to jail for practicing civil disobedience, eight white clergymen criticized him and the direct-action campaign in Birmingham. Dr. King defended himself by writing a letter in which he points out that there’s a huge moral difference between breaking a just law and breaking an unjust law. To break a just law is to act immorally, since it’s obviously indefensible to disobey any rule rooted in fairness. Conversely, it’s actually moral to break an unjust law. A law is unjust if it “degrades human personality”—in other words, if a law has a negative impact on a population’s ability to move through life, it’s unjust. To obey such a law therefore means reinforcing something that is actively harmful, so it would be wrong to unquestioningly follow it. Accordingly, Dr. King suggests that his decision to practice civil disobedience is not just permissible, but also something of a moral imperative—something he was compelled to do out of a sense of honor and integrity. Instead of admonishing him and the civil rights movement for creating disorder, then, the white clergymen (who presumably had the same religious devotion to justice as Dr. King himself) should have felt a moral responsibility to stand up against oppression.

Furthermore, Dr. King’s religious beliefs don’t just reinforce his moral outlook—they also give him faith that true change will someday come. His ability to work so tirelessly toward equality is directly related to his overall faith in the goodness of humankind. For instance, when white supremacists bombed his brother’s house, Dr. King spoke to his brother on the phone, and even though the circumstances were emotionally strenuous and discouraging, there was a moment of hope and optimism when a group started singing the gospel song “We Shall Overcome” in the background of the call. Despite his sorrow in this moment, Dr. King felt uplifted by hearing the song, which has spiritual overtones and is said to have developed from a church hymn. Instead of despairing, then, Dr. King was reminded of the power of responding to hate “with hope and with faith,” therefore illustrating how helpful it can be for leaders to have a strong sense of faith—a sense of faith that can, in many cases, help people remain resilient and hopeful.