Over the years, I have spent much time reading the papers, sermons, and books by King. I assume all informed people know that it has been confirmed by King’s people in Atlanta that he was a prolific plagiarizer who did not even try to hide his literary thievery.

However, my concern here is not with his plagiarism or his philandering but with his preaching. It is clear that King preached heresy as his seminary papers and his books reveal. Today, my main target is the papers he wrote at Crozer Seminary.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote, “It seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King continued: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker….To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth.”

Well, we could go back to Isaiah 7:14 where Isaiah promised, “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and [you] shall call his name Immanuel.” Yes, the translation could be “maid, damsel, or virgin” but Matthew 1:23 settled the matter when Matthew wrote, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child…and they shall call his name Immanuel…” The clear truth in Matthew confirms the use of virgin in Isaiah! So that settles that!

However, not for King. He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth declaring, “To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth.” However, a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deals with them from the same perspective. In fact, a different perspective is one reason God gave us four Gospels. Furthermore, no Gospel is more “authentic” than another.

King also takes a scalpel and seeks to excise the core doctrine of His resurrection from the Bible and from history: “From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighted in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do some of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.”

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.” We Fundamentalists may experience ridicule but at least we can spell it.

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” He is saying, “You are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.”

As to the atonement of Christ, King wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He explained that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral….In the next place, if Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty is exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive.”

Therefore, according to King, Christ did not triumph over death, Hell, and the grave and the fact that Christ took our sin and guilt upon Himself on the cross is “bizarre” and immoral.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment, and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life. It speaks volumes that he built arguments against the truths of scriptures rather than supporting them. He did not believe the Bible.

So, on Jan. 15, I will not celebrate King’s birthday. I will celebrate the usual way: my wife and some friends will eat frog legs, Peking duck, and steak at our favorite Chinese Restaurant. As always, it will be a great evening.

After all, I get to eat free since it is my birthday.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is available at amazon.com for $3.99.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Martin Luther King’s statement that a person should be judged by his character not the color of his skin is a majestic thought. I will do that as I look at King, and I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will do the same?
Some “conservatives” need to do likewise!

Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?

Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” Neuhaus is a well-known liberal theologian and writer. My research also indicates that King was a drunk, plagiarist, bisexual, and Marxist. Try to remember that we are not concerned with his race or complexion, but his character.

If I were looking at David Duke and did not deal with his past involvement with the Nazi movement, I would be accused of bias or poor research. In the interest of truth am I not required to do the same with King? If not, then why is he exempt from a careful, honest look at his past to make a decision about him in the present? If I am wrong, please correct me.

No person deserves to be called a journalist if he refuses to look at both sides of an issue or if he/she refuses to give proper weight to all arguments because of prejudice. If a writer is fearful of where the truth will lead him, he should be selling insurance.

During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I asked the editor if I could do a column on King’s plagiarism, however, I never got permission. I had read the story of King’s literary thievery in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips from the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. The Wall Street Journal broke the story a couple of months later although they did so gingerly.

It is noteworthy that the American media was then forced to deal with King’s plagiarism, but even then they defended him! One main defense was that it was a “black thing,” which was an insult to honest, decent Blacks. When you quote King you don’t know whom you are quoting!

Why is there little debate in the King controversy? During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, the editor would not permit me to do a column on King although every year in early January, they always did a page dealing with him. I have one issue that has five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere.

Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus numerous one night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual having been heard during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. King was also caught running naked after a woman down a Norway hotel hallway during his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize! The night before he was killed he spent the night with two women and fought with a third, according to his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. If a man will not keep his marriage vows, he is not worthy to walk my dog.

According to the Bible, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His virgin birth and his physical resurrection so according to II John he should not be honored; in fact, no one should “bid him God speed.” Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, ever seeking to get lost men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Never happened because he did not believe that was essential.

King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani and assorted Republicans was a man without character, and informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.

While I was a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, a member introduced a bill to memorialize King before we had his national holiday forced upon us. The memorialization meant nothing since we did them almost every day as routine.

When the King vote came up (it was a voice vote since it was no big deal) mine was the only negative vote out of a hundred. No one in the senate voted no. I wondered where all the conservatives were. Soon they surrounded me saying that they should have voted with me but didn’t think it was worth the flack. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!

The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak to the issue and demand a recorded vote but did not do so. Why? I don’t know. Some might say it was peer pressure. My conservative friends told me, “Don, it won’t do any good and could hinder your chances of getting your bills even assigned to committee.” It was the only time I did not follow my principles while in office.

King does not deserve a national holiday but instead he should be exposed as a fraud, a fake, and a fool, and I would feel the same about a white conservative!

As for celebrating King’s birthday, I will not do so but I will take the day off since it is my birthday!