MLK isn't really seen so much as a religious leader, as he is seen as a civil rights leader. While mos religious leaders are primarily interested in increasing donations, MLK is seen as a person interested in making a better world of equal opportunity for everyone.

As I've read through a lot of the comments here, I've noticed that even though civil rights are mentioned, maybe that term is a little misunderstood. I lived in a suburb of Chicago in the early to mid 60s. I saw the struggle for civil rights firsthand. Yes, I was young then, 5th, 6th, and 7th grade but I was acutely aware of what was at stake. Before Johnson adopted the Civil Rights Act, black people could not vote in this country. I always found it odd that this persisted for so long after the end of the Civil War. Even 36 miles away from Chicago, blacks were not allowed in the city limits after 10 PM. I've always admired the people who stood up to this injustice but I was powerless to really do anything that mattered. So instead, I understood that I must always treat everyone with the dignity everyone deserves. Since my birth I've lived in 9 different states and I've always kept my promise to myself. Dr. King really didn't strike me as a religious leader but he really was a leader among men. Whenever I heard any of his speeches, (on TV of course) I never came away with the idea that he was talking about anything beyond his vision of racial harmony. There was no hate speech, nothing but his desire to see people of all colors living together in peace. We are better today but there are still people who subscribe to the old, tired, and morally absent views from years gone by. When I saw on TV that Dr. King had been shot and killed, I think every American died a little bit that day. Whether they knew it or not. The 60s was a tough decade. JFK, then Oswald getting shot live on TV, (yes, I watched this live), Dr. King and then Robert Kennedy. The only redeeming factor was the moon landing. That made us forget for a little while. I'm grateful to have lived through these times, but I wouldn't do it again. It's too emotionally draining to watch your fellow citizens fight so hard for such a simple thing. Too much death of the people who were poised to change the United States for the better. I believe that until everyone, young or old, black or white, religious or atheistic, or any of the myriad of ways we are all different, we can all live together in harmony no matter what anyone believes. We must take the chance because we all deserve to live an unimpeded life. All of us.

@Geoffrey51

How old are you? Don't you know the history of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Haven't you heard his famous "I Have a Dream" speech?

[video.search.yahoo.com]

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was important because he tried to put an end to racism and make peace for the world. He wanted people to be treated the equally and not differently. He wanted people to be able to go into the same spots and not have to go to different places. He wanted freedom for the world and be able to go places and be treated fairly.

He was important because he helped America from segregation of black and white people.

For me, among some of the other reasons posted here, MLK was inclusive with whom he organized with. He didn't just march with other religious leaders, but secularists and atheists like A. Philip Randolph(which headed the March on Washington). I feel as though he understood that he needed to be able to reach across the table and join arms with even those that didn't share his religious beliefs. I can respect that. The only problems I have with religious leaders are the ones trying to push their "values" into the public sphere and/or legislation.

You can respect MLK the civil rights activist without respecting his crazy religious beliefs.

In my opinion it is because MLK has given every human being a guarantee of civil rights. Before he came along most of us did not know what this was, or thought it was for black people only. Wrong. It is because of King and his movement that our government recognizes civil rights.

I do not "revere" MLK.

I respect some of the work he did as it related to the Civil Rights movement,
but I would have preferred someone who wasn't entrenched in religion.
However, given that his religious faith gave him credence among many who
might not have otherwise been moved by the message, he was the right person
for the time.
That said, he was a deeply flawed individual, just like everyone else.
He was a serial womanizer, and wasn't as "godly" as so many believe him
to have been.

It's happened that way throughout history.
Unfortunately, religion has played such a tremendous role with so many historic
"leaders". In some cases, that's all some people have to bring them together.

For me, it's because his religion was all about liberating people rather than oppressing them. I'm cool with anyone who uses their imaginary friend as inspiration to be awesome. I may not share their beliefs but I share their values.

I try not to demean anyone.
I just ignore them.

Because most religious leaders don't practice what they preach. In other words, the world is full of hypocrites in places of religious authority. When a man stands for something in every part of his life, something noble and good, he deserves respect and admiration. It's not difficult to figure out.

I have often quoted MLK and others who are either religious leaders or are known to be people of faith. I don’t care about whether they believed in god or not, or represented religious bodies, if they have said or done something which I believe to be praiseworthy or meriting being remembered, I will say so.

Well the thing about Dr. King was, is even though he was a Reverend, he sought to end human suffering, he sought to end greed, he sought to bring equality to the forefront. He is somewhat of a folk hero. He stood againt the government and raised the peoples moral to empower them to fight these injustices. To me at the least he was a Bernie Sanders for the African American people. His message resonated far beyond race. True enough that he had a lot of enemies. All that means is he stood up for what he believed in. Bigotry began to become unpopular. His voice for nonviolence and love for all fellow humans was a timeless message that the ruling class did not want to get out. When he was shot in Memphis in 1968 he did not die right then. He died later in the hospital. There are some interesting interviews that took place with the hospital staff that suggest he was assassinated by the government to silence his message. Particularly his very popular messages against the war in Vietnam which was starting to unite people all across the country.

Do you mean like Joel Osoff, or Jim Baker (and Tammy too!) And other such predators?? Yes indeed, I demean them every chance I get!

I would agree that many on this site act in such a manner. To their detriment, they overlook the fact that some religious leaders have profound thoughts and acts in relation to other sectors of life to their credit that benefit us all.

You are wrong. There isn't any demeaning attitude to ALL religious leaders. Perhaps contempt is a better word but only for those who are hypocrites, albeit most of them. The contempt is justified due to the brainwashing that goes on from their part which is a danger to society. MLK was killed in the 60s, he was instrumental to the fight for equal rights for all, however misguided he might have been in the religious department, he redeemed himself by using his influence on a just cause not hatred. See any other "leader" doing something similar now that we have existencial threats? Nope. There's your answer.

Far Eastern religions are probably not picked on as much as Christianity and Muslims.

Martin Luther started a movement and Martin Luther King was just as groundbreaking.
I think to discount the positive changes someone makes because they have differences to ourselves is slightly counter productive.
Plus they are relevant to their heritage and time in history.
Times are changing, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be learnt from movers and shakers of the past
Yes to intelligent and insightful, also forward thinking and ground breaking. A pioneer.

Yes, there are many on this site who heap scorn, not only on religious leaders but on all religious people, demonizing and labeling them with various dehumanizing names. There are a few on here who react vociferously to any metaphysical idea that is at odds with their simplistic physicalist world view. You are correct to point out the incongruity with respect to Dr. King, but don’t expect much change. Those who rationalize have neat little thought-compartments, pre-labeled, where they keep their opinions, and those opinions are not subject to change.

Several times I have pointed out that Hilary Clinton is very much an “Evangelical”, yet not one response has ever been presented. The same people who rail against the religion of Mike Pence seem to almost worship Clinton, who actually aspires to become a preacher.

As a teenager I thought of MLK as a troublemaker. Later, in college, I decided that his social goals were legitimate. After the army I saw King as a great social reformer. Only in recent years have I paid attention to his religious views. Dr. King had very deep spiritual insight—he was first and foremost a great religious leader. Everything else was secondary.

People may have more than one facet to their character, and it is perfectly possible, and correct, to revere people for the good things that they do, yet not respect the bad. Indeed to do otherwise would be to give unqualified and thoughtless respect, which would not be worth having or giving.

I can, will and do respect, people such as the Dalai Lama or Justin Welby, our current archbishop of Canterbury, for their often humane and reasoned political and economic statements, but at the same time hold their offices in utter contempt. And never while respecting their statements on some aspects of morality forget that in one respect, people, who hold offices where they earn power and profit from deception, have lost their moral values completely in any real sense.

The general tendency is due to tribalism, and the exception is required by political correctness, and motivated by virtue-signaling.

Am I cynical?

........Nah!

He wasn't looked upon favorably by most of the white majority. He was seen as dangerous which is why the FBi was constantly trying to get dirt on him. Since he never strayed from preaching non-violent resistance he was the easiest to let's say white wash.

MLK is revered for his accomplishments toward the betterment of humankind in general, and people of his race in particular. If he was just another religious preacher, we'd have forgotten him.

What's the last thing the Pope accomplished that was of any use to anyone? Aside from apologizing for the vast myriad of past church mistakes, that is. A hollow set of apologies, at that.

Yes, and he did not preach about damnation, actually I don't remember him preaching much about God, more about how humans treated each other.

For a more balanced view of King, one should read Ralph David Abernathy's "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down".