Kansas City overwhelmingly votes to remove Martin Luther King's name from historic st

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2019, 08:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Tend to agree with you on the bolded.  

The church was "home" to many of the pro-King Blvd faction, so it was a much more intimate setting than, say, a community center or a public park.

Also, protests of this type normally form at a distance--across the street or down the block from whatever they are protesting.

In this case, to go right inside the church members' intimate space and refuse dialogue seems more deliberate provocation and insult than "protest-cuz-we're-all-in-the-same-community-and-we-want-our-views-heard-and-respected-and-process-followed."  People were invited to discuss if not support the proposal, and the protestors pointedly did neither.  The message was more "Look, we can do this, and you can't stop us, and we don't have to explain."

Surprising that a group of ministers fought for two years to get the council vote, but the anti-renaming petitioners only found out after the vote.

People thinking through their protest of the MLK renaming could certainly foresee charges of "racism," and might have deflected them with a sitdown and mega-alternative that reflected sincerity in honoring King. (63rd street probably wouldn't cut it.)  Is it utterly IMPOSSIBLE that racism has something to do with unnaming the street in the last major city of the US not to have an MLK street?  

I'm not sure the Church being "home" excuses the pastor using it for political motives and then asking others to respect a house of the lord. Matter of fact I am sure; he forfeited that sanctity. 

As far as your preference protesters form at a distance; I'll assume you'll criticize all protesters who fail to do so. I know I will.

You view of this matter seems to be a little "slanted" but that could just be my observation of it. You may be calling it down the middle.