Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.] 马丁·路德·金：发自伯明翰监狱的一封信 （附：中文翻译）

Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]

16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.

马丁·路德·金：发自伯明翰监狱的一封信

1963年4月16日

我亲爱的教友们，

当我被关在伯明翰市监狱的时候 我看到了你最近的声明 称我目前的活动是 "不明智和不合时宜的" 我很少停下来回答对我工作和思想的批评。如果我试图回答所有横在我办公桌上的批评，我的秘书们就会在一天的工作中除了这种信件之外，几乎没有时间做其他事情，而我也就没有时间做建设性的工作。但是，既然我觉得你们是真正善意的人，而且你们的批评意见是真诚地提出来的，我想试着用我希望是耐心而合理的语言来回答你们的发言。

我想我应该说明我为什么来伯明翰，因为你受到了反对 "外人进来 "的观点的影响。我有幸担任南方基督教领袖会议的主席，这个组织在南方各州都有活动，总部在乔治亚州的亚特兰大。我们在南方大约有八十五个附属组织，其中一个是阿拉巴马基督教人权运动。我们经常与附属组织分享人员、教育和财政资源。几个月前，伯明翰这里的附属组织要求我们在认为必要的情况下，随叫随到，参与一个非暴力的直接行动方案。我们欣然同意，当时间到了，我们不辜负我们的承诺。所以，我和我的几位员工在这里，是因为我被邀请到这里。我在这里是因为我在这里有组织关系。

但更基本的是，我在伯明翰，因为这里有不公正。就像公元前八世纪的先知离开他们的村庄，并携带他们的 "主这样说 "远远超出他们的家乡的边界，就像使徒保罗离开他的大数村，并携带耶稣基督的福音到希腊罗马世界的遥远角落，所以我被迫携带自由的福音超越我自己的家乡。像保罗一样，我必须不断响应马其顿的援助呼吁。

此外，我认识到所有社区和国家之间的相互联系。我不能在亚特兰大袖手旁观，而不关心伯明翰的情况。任何地方的不公正都是对各地公正的威胁。我们被卷入了一个不可避免的相互关系网，被命运的单衣所束缚。凡是直接影响到一个人的，都会间接影响到所有人。我们再也不能以狭隘的、省级的 "外部煽动者 "的想法来生活。任何住在美国境内的人，在美国境内的任何地方都不能被视为外人。

你对伯明翰发生的示威游行表示遗憾。但很遗憾，你的发言没有对导致示威的条件表示类似的关切。我相信，你们没有一个人愿意满足于那种只处理效果而不处理根本原因的肤浅的社会分析。伯明翰发生示威游行是不幸的，但更不幸的是，该市的白人权力结构让黑人社区别无选择。

在任何非暴力运动中，都有四个基本步骤：收集事实，以确定是否存在不公正；谈判；自我净化；直接行动。我们在伯明翰经历了所有这些步骤。种族不公正笼罩着这个社会，这是不容置疑的事实。伯明翰可能是美国种族隔离最彻底的城市。它的丑陋的残暴记录是众所周知的。黑人在法庭上经历了严重的不公正待遇。伯明翰发生的黑人住宅和教堂爆炸案，比全国任何其他城市的未破案都多。这些都是艰难而残酷的事实。基于这些条件，黑人领袖们试图与城市元老们进行谈判。但后者始终拒绝进行真诚的谈判。

去年9月，有机会与伯明翰经济界的领导人谈话。在谈判过程中，商人们作出了某些承诺 -- -- 例如，拆除商店的羞辱性种族标志。在这些承诺的基础上，弗雷德-肖特沃斯牧师和阿拉巴马基督教人权运动的领导人同意暂停所有示威活动。几个星期和几个月过去了，我们意识到，我们是一个违背承诺的受害者。有几个标志，短暂地被撤掉，又回来了；其他标志仍然存在。如同过去的许多经历一样，我们的希望已经破灭，深深的失望阴影笼罩着我们。我们别无选择，只能准备采取直接行动，用我们的身体作为一种手段，在当地和全国社会的良知面前陈述我们的情况。考虑到其中的困难，我们决定进行自我净化。我们开始了一系列关于非暴力的研讨会， 我们反复问自己， "你是否能够接受打击而不报复？" "你能够忍受监狱的折磨吗？" 我们决定把我们的直接行动计划安排在复活节期间，因为我们意识到，除了圣诞节，这是一年中主要的购物期。我们知道，一个强有力的经济--退出计划将是直接行动的副产品，我们觉得这将是向商家施加压力以进行必要改变的最佳时机。

我们想到伯明翰的市长选举即将在三月份举行，我们迅速决定把行动推迟到选举日之后。当我们发现公共安全专员尤金-"公牛"-康纳（Eugene "Bull "Connor）已经堆积了足够的选票，在第二轮选举中，我们再次决定将行动推迟到第二轮选举的第二天，这样示威就不会被用来蒙蔽问题。像其他许多人一样，我们等待着看到康纳先生被击败，为此我们忍受了一次又一次的推迟。在帮助了这个社区的需要之后，我们觉得我们的直接行动计划不能再拖延了。

你可能会问："为什么要采取直接行动？为什么要静坐、游行等等？谈判不是更好的途径吗？" "你呼吁谈判是非常正确的。事实上，这正是直接行动的目的。非暴力的直接行动旨在制造这样的危机，制造这样的紧张局势，使一个一直拒绝谈判的社会被迫面对这个问题。它试图使问题戏剧化，以至于不能再忽视它。我把制造紧张局势作为非暴力抵抗者工作的一部分，听起来可能相当令人震惊。但我必须承认，我并不害怕 "紧张 "这个词。我曾真诚地反对暴力紧张，但有一种建设性的、非暴力的紧张是成长所必需的。就像苏格拉底认为有必要在头脑中制造一种张力，以便个人能够从神话和半真半假的束缚中上升到创造性分析和客观评价的无拘无束的境界一样，我们也必须看到非暴力的牛虻有必要在社会中制造一种张力，帮助人们从偏见和种族主义的黑暗深处上升到理解和兄弟情谊的雄伟高度。我们的直接行动计划的目的是创造一种危机四伏的局面，以至于它将不可避免地打开谈判的大门。因此，我同意你对谈判的呼吁。我们心爱的南国长期以来一直陷于悲惨的努力，生活在独白而非对话中。

你发言中的一个基本观点是，我和我的同事们在伯明翰采取的行动是不合时宜的。有人问： "为什么你不给新的城市管理部门时间去行动？" 对于这个疑问，我唯一能给出的答案是，新的伯明翰政府必须和即将离任的政府一样受到催促，才会采取行动。如果我们觉得选举艾伯特-布特维尔为市长会给伯明翰带来千禧年，那我们就大错特错了。虽然布特威尔先生比康纳先生温和得多，但他们都是种族隔离主义者，致力于维持现状。我希望布特维尔先生能理智地看到大规模抵抗取消种族隔离是徒劳的。但如果没有民权信徒的压力，他是不会看到这一点的。朋友们，我必须对你们说，如果没有坚决的法律和非暴力的压力，我们在民权方面没有取得过一次进展。可叹的是，一个历史事实是，特权群体很少自愿放弃他们的特权。个人可能会看到道德的曙光，自愿放弃其不公正的姿态；但是，正如莱因霍尔德-尼布尔提醒我们的那样，群体往往比个人更不道德。

我们从痛苦的经历中知道，自由从来都不是压迫者自愿给予的；它必须是被压迫者要求的。坦率地说，我还没有参加过在那些没有受到种族隔离病害的人看来是 "适时 "的直接行动运动。多年来，我一直听到 "等待 "这个词。它以刺耳的熟悉感响在每个黑人的耳边。这个 "等待 "几乎总是意味着 "永不"。我们必须和我们的一位杰出的法学家一起认识到 "正义被拖延得太久就是拒绝正义"

我们已经为我们的宪法和上帝赋予的权利等待了340多年。亚洲和非洲的国家正以喷气式的速度向着获得政治独立的方向前进，但我们仍然以马和马车的速度向着在午餐柜台上获得一杯咖啡的方向爬行。也许对于那些从未感受过种族隔离的刺眼飞镖的人来说，很容易说："等等"。但是，当你看到恶毒的暴徒随意对你的母亲和父亲动用私刑，随意淹死你的姐妹和兄弟；当你看到充满仇恨的警察咒骂、踢打甚至杀死你的黑人兄弟姐妹；当你看到你的两千万黑人兄弟中的绝大多数人在富裕的社会中闷在一个密不透风的贫困笼子里。当你突然发现你的舌头被扭曲，说话结巴，当你试图向你六岁的女儿解释为什么她不能去公共游乐园，刚刚在电视上做了广告，当她被告知Funtown不对有色人种的孩子开放时，看到她的眼泪在眼眶里打转，看到不祥的自卑云彩开始在她小小的心灵天空中形成，看到她开始扭曲她的个性，对白人产生一种无意识的怨恨。当你不得不为一个五岁的儿子编造一个答案，他问： "爸爸，为什么白人对有色人种如此刻薄？"；当你驱车跨县，发现有必要夜夜睡在汽车不舒服的角落里，因为没有一家汽车旅馆愿意接纳你；当你日复一日地被写着 "白人 "和 "有色人种 "的唠叨牌子羞辱；当你的名字变成了 "黑鬼"，中间名变成了 "男孩"（不管你多大），姓变成了 "约翰"，而你的妻子和母亲从来没有得到 "夫人 "这个尊称；当你被 "黑鬼 "和 "有色人种 "骚扰；当你的妻子和母亲从来没有得到 "夫人 "这个尊称。  总有一天，忍耐之杯会用完，人们不再愿意陷入绝望的深渊。先生们，我希望你们能理解我们合理的、不可避免的不耐烦。你们对我们违反法律的意愿表示了极大的忧虑。这当然是一个合理的担忧。既然我们如此勤奋地敦促人们遵守最高法院1954年的决定，禁止公立学校的种族隔离，乍一看，我们有意识地违反法律似乎有点自相矛盾。也许有人会问："你怎么能主张违反一些法律而服从另一些法律呢？" 答案就在于，法律有两种：正义的和不正义的。我首先主张遵守正义的法律。一个人遵守公正的法律，不仅有法律责任，而且有道德责任。反之，一个人有道德责任不遵守不公正的法律。我同意圣奥古斯丁的观点，即 "不公正的法律根本就不是法律"。

现在，这两者的区别是什么？如何判断一个法律是公正还是不公正？公正的法律是一种人为制定的法典，它与道德律或上帝的律法相一致。不公正的法律是与道德律不一致的法典。用圣托马斯-阿奎那的话来说， 不公正的法律是一种不以永恒法则和自然法则为根基的人类法律。任何提升人的个性的法律都是正义的。任何降低人的个性的法律都是不公正的。所有的隔离法规都是不公正的，因为隔离扭曲了灵魂，损害了人格。它给隔离者以虚假的优越感，给被隔离者以虚假的自卑感。隔离，用犹太哲学家马丁-布伯的术语来说，就是用 "我它 "关系代替 "我你 "关系，最后把人降为物的地位。因此，隔离不仅在政治、经济和社会学上是不健全的，在道德上也是错误和罪恶的。保罗-蒂利希说过，罪恶就是分离。隔离不正是人类悲惨的分离、可怕的疏离、可怕的罪恶的存在表现吗？因此，我可以敦促人们服从最高法院1954年的决定，因为它在道德上是正确的；我也可以敦促他们不遵守隔离条例，因为它们在道德上是错误的。

让我们考虑一个更具体的例子，即公正和不公正的法律。不公正的法律是指一个人数或权力上的多数群体强制少数群体遵守，但不对自己有约束力的法典。这就是把差异变成了法律。同样的道理，正义的法律是多数人强迫少数人遵守的，而且自己也愿意遵守的法典。这就是将同一性变为法律。让我再解释一下。如果一项法律强加给少数人，而该少数人由于被剥夺了投票权，没有参与制定或设计该法律，那么这项法律就是不公正的。谁能说制定该州种族隔离法的阿拉巴马州立法机构是民主选举产生的？在整个阿拉巴马州，人们用各种狡猾的方法来阻止黑人成为登记的选民，在有些县里，尽管黑人占人口的大多数，但没有一个黑人登记。在这种情况下制定的任何法律都可以被认为是民主结构吗？

有時候，一項法律表面上是公正的，但在執行上卻是不公正的。舉例來說，我曾被控無證遊行而被捕。現在，有一項條例規定遊行要有許可證，這並沒有錯，但這項條例卻不公義。但是，当这样的法令被用来维持种族隔离和剥夺公民和平集会和抗议的第一修正案特权时，它就变得不公正了。

我希望你能够看到我试图指出的区别。在任何意义上，我都不主张逃避或藐视法律，就像狂热的种族隔离主义者那样。那会导致无政府状态。一个人如果违反了不公正的法律，就必须公开地、充满爱心地、并愿意接受惩罚地去做。我认为，一个人如果违反了良心告诉他的不公正的法律，并且为了唤起社会对其不公正的良知而心甘情愿地接受监禁的惩罚，这实际上是在表达对法律的最高尊重。

当然，这种公民不服从法律的行为并不新鲜。它在沙得拉、米沙克和亚比得尼哥拒绝遵守尼布甲尼撒的律法中得到了崇高的证明，理由是这关系到更高的道德律。早期的基督徒就极好地实践了这一点，他们愿意面对饥饿的狮子和砍块的剧痛，也不愿意服从罗马帝国的某些不公正的法律。在一定程度上，学术自由之所以能在今天成为现实，是因为苏格拉底实行了公民不服从。在我们自己的国家，波士顿茶党代表了大规模的公民不服从行为。

我们永远不要忘记，阿道夫-希特勒在德国所做的一切都是 "合法 "的，而匈牙利自由战士在匈牙利所做的一切都是 "非法 "的。在希特勒的德国，援助和安慰一个犹太人是 "非法 "的。即便如此，我相信，如果我当时生活在德国，我一定会援助和安慰我的犹太兄弟。如果今天我生活在一个共产主义国家，在这个国家里，基督教信仰所珍视的某些原则受到压制，我会公开主张不遵守该国的反宗教法律。

我必须向你们，我的基督教和犹太教兄弟们，坦诚地做两个忏悔。首先，我必须承认，在过去几年里，我对白人温和派感到严重失望。我几乎得出了一个令人遗憾的结论，那就是黑人在迈向自由的道路上，最大的绊脚石不是白人公民议员，也不是三K党人，而是白人温和派，他更致力于 "秩序"，而不是正义；他更喜欢没有紧张局势的消极和平，而不是正义存在的积极和平；他不断地说："我同意你们的目标，但我不同意你们的目标，因为你们的目标是什么？"我同意你所追求的目标，但我不能同意你的直接行动方法"；他以家长式的方式认为他可以为另一个人的自由设定时间表；他以一种神话般的时间概念生活，并不断建议黑人等待一个 "更方便的季节"。 " 善意的人的浅薄理解比恶意的人的绝对误解更令人沮丧。不温不火的接受比断然拒绝更令人困惑。

我曾希望温和的白人能够明白，法律和秩序的存在是为了建立正义，当它们不能实现这一目的时，它们就会成为阻碍社会进步流动的危险结构性大坝。我曾希望白人温和派能明白，南方目前的紧张局势是一个从令人讨厌的消极和平（在这种和平中，黑人被动地接受了他的不公正的困境）向实质性的积极和平（在这种和平中，所有人都会尊重人的人格尊严和价值）过渡的必要阶段。其实，我们从事非暴力直接行动的人并不是紧张局势的制造者。我们只是把已经活生生的隐藏的紧张关系带到了表面。我们把它带到公开的地方，在那里可以看到和处理它。就像一个只要被掩盖就永远无法治愈的疖子，而必须将其丑陋的一面展现在空气和光线的自然药物面前一样，不公正必须将其暴露在人类良知的光芒和国家舆论的空气中，而后才能治愈。

你在声明中断言，我们的行动即使是和平的，也必须受到谴责，因为它们会沉淀出暴力。但这是符合逻辑的论断吗？这不就像谴责一个被抢劫的人，因为他拥有钱财而引发了抢劫的恶行吗？这不就像谴责苏格拉底，因为他对真理坚定不移的承诺和他的哲学探究，导致被误导的民众让他喝下鸩酒的行为吗？这不就像谴责耶稣一样，因为他独特的上帝意识和对上帝意志永不停息的奉献，而导致了被钉死在十字架上的恶行吗？我们必须看到，正如联邦法院一贯申明的那样，敦促一个人停止努力获得其基本的宪法权利是错误的，因为这种追求可能会沉淀出暴力。社会必须保护被抢劫者，惩罚抢劫者。我也曾希望，白人温和派能拒绝关于时间与争取自由的关系的神话。我刚刚收到德克萨斯州一位白人弟兄的来信。他写道："所有的基督徒都知道有色人种最终会得到平等的权利，但有可能是你们在宗教上太过着急。基督教用了近两千年的时间才取得了这样的成就。基督的教义需要时间才能落地。" 这种态度源于对时间的悲剧性误解，源于一种奇怪的非理性观念，即认为时间的流逝中存在着某种必然能治愈一切疾病的东西。其实，时间本身是中性的，它可以被破坏性地利用，也可以被建设性地利用。我越来越觉得，意志不坚定的人对时间的利用比意志坚定的人更有效。在这一代人中，我们要忏悔的不仅仅是坏人的可恶言行，还有好人的骇人听闻的沉默。人类的进步从来都不是用必然性的车轮滚进来的，它是通过愿意与上帝同工的人的不懈努力来实现的，如果没有这种艰苦的努力，时间本身就会成为社会停滞力量的盟友。我们必须创造性地利用时间，因为我们知道，做正确的事情的时机总是成熟的。现在是实现民主承诺的时候了，也是把我们悬而未决的民族挽歌变成兄弟情谊的创造性诗篇的时候了。现在是把我们的国家政策从种族不公正的流沙中解放出来，变成人类尊严的坚固岩石的时候了。

你说我们在伯明翰的活动是极端的。起初我很失望，因为神职人员会把我的非暴力努力看成是极端主义者的努力。我开始思考这样一个事实：我站在黑人社区两股对立力量的中间。一股是自满的力量，一部分是由黑人组成的，他们由于长年受压迫，自尊心和 "主体感 "被消磨殆尽，以至于适应了种族隔离；另一部分是由少数中产阶级黑人组成的，他们由于有一定程度的学业和经济保障，也由于在某些方面从种族隔离中获利，对群众的问题变得麻木不仁。另一种力量是一种苦闷和仇恨的力量，它险些鼓吹暴力。它表现在全国各地兴起的各种黑人民族主义团体中，其中规模最大、最著名的是以利亚-穆罕默德的穆斯林运动。在黑人对种族歧视持续存在的挫折感的滋养下，这个运动是由对美国失去信心的人组成的，他们绝对否定基督教，他们认为白人是一个无可救药的 "魔鬼"。

我曾试图站在这两股力量之间，说我们既不需要效仿自满者的 "无为主义"，也不需要效仿黑人民族主义者的仇恨和绝望。因为有更优秀的爱和非暴力抗议的方式。我感谢上帝，在黑人教会的影响下，非暴力之道成为我们斗争的一个组成部分。如果这个理念没有出现，现在南方的许多街道，我相信，会流淌着鲜血。而且我进一步确信，如果我们的白人兄弟把我们这些采用非暴力直接行动的人当作 "乌合之众 "和 "外部煽动者"，如果他们拒绝支持我们的非暴力努力，数以百万计的黑人将出于沮丧和绝望，在黑人民族主义意识形态中寻求安慰和安全感----这种发展将不可避免地导致一场可怕的种族噩梦。

被压迫的人不可能永远受压迫。对自由的渴望最终会表现出来，这就是美国黑人的遭遇。内心的东西提醒他，他与生俱来的自由权利，而内心的东西又提醒他，自由是可以获得的。自觉或不自觉地，他已经被时代潮流所追赶，和他的非洲黑人兄弟以及亚洲、南美和加勒比地区的棕黄兄弟一起，美国黑人正带着一种巨大的紧迫感向着种族正义的应许之地前进。如果人们认识到这一笼罩在黑人社会中的重要冲动，就应该很容易理解为什么会发生公众示威。黑人有许多积压的怨恨和潜在的挫折，他必须释放它们。所以，让他去游行；让他去市政厅祈祷朝圣；让他去自由骑行--并试着去理解他为什么必须这样做。如果他被压抑的情绪不以非暴力的方式释放，它们就会通过暴力来寻求表达；这不是威胁，而是历史的事实。所以我没有对我的人民说 "消除你们的不满" "Get rid of your discontent." 相反，我试图说，这种正常和健康的不满情绪可以被引导到非暴力直接行动的创造性渠道中。而现在这种方式被称为极端主义。不过，虽然一开始我对被归为极端主义者感到失望，但随着我对此事的不断思考，我逐渐从这个标签中获得了一定的满足感。耶稣不就是一个极端主义者吗，因为爱。"爱你的敌人，为诅咒你的人祈福 为恨你的人行善 为那些轻视你，迫害你的人祈祷" 阿摩司不就是一个追求正义的极端主义者吗。"让正义像水一样滚落，让公义像流水一样流淌" 保罗不是基督教福音的极端主义者吗？"我的身上有主耶稣的印记。" 马丁-路德不是一个极端主义者吗。"我站在这里，我不能不这样做，所以帮助我的神。" 还有约翰-班扬："我将在监狱里呆到天荒地老，才会对自己的良心进行屠戮。" 亚伯拉罕-林肯："这个国家不能生存一半奴隶和一半自由。" 托马斯・杰斐逊： "我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的，即人人生而平等... ..." 所以问题不在于我们是否会成为极端分子，而在于我们会成为什么样的极端分子。我们会为了仇恨还是为了爱而成为极端主义者？我们是为维护不公正而做极端主义者，还是为扩大正义而做极端主义者？在髑髅地山上那戏剧性的一幕，有三个人被钉在十字架上。我们永远不要忘记，这三个人都是因同样的罪行--极端主义的罪行而被钉死的。其中两个人是不道德的极端主义者，因此落在环境之下。另一个人，耶稣基督，是为爱、真理和善的极端主义者，因而超越了他的环境。也许南方、国家和世界都急需有创造力的极端主义者。

我曾希望白人温和派能看到这种需要。也许我过于乐观，也许我期望过高。我想我应该认识到，压迫者中很少有人能理解被压迫者的深切呻吟和热烈渴望，更少有人有远见，能看到必须通过强有力的、坚持不懈的和坚定的行动来根除不公正。不过，我很庆幸，我们南方的一些白人兄弟已经领会了这场社会革命的意义，并投身于这场革命。他们在数量上还都太少，但在质量上却很大。有些人--如拉尔夫-麦吉尔、莉莲-史密斯、哈里-戈登、詹姆斯-麦克布莱德-达布斯、安-布莱登和萨拉-巴顿-博伊尔--用雄辩的、预言性的语言写下了我们的斗争。其他人与我们一起走过南方的无名街道。他们在肮脏的、蟑螂出没的监狱里苦苦煎熬，遭受着警察的虐待和残暴，他们认为自己是 "肮脏的黑鬼爱好者"。与许多温和的兄弟姐妹不同，他们认识到了当下的紧迫性，并感觉到需要强有力的 "行动 "解药来对抗种族隔离的疾病。请允许我指出我的另一个重大失望。我对白人教会及其领导层大失所望。当然，也有一些显著的例外。我不是不知道你们每个人在这个问题上都采取了一些重要的立场。史塔林斯牧师，我赞扬你在上个星期天的基督教立场，欢迎黑人在不隔离的基础上参加你的礼拜仪式。我赞扬这个州的天主教领袖几年前整合了春山学院。

但尽管有这些显著的例外，我必须诚实地重申，我对教会一直很失望。我并不是作为那些总是能找到教会错误的负面评论家之一说这番话。我是作为一个热爱教会，在教会的怀抱中成长，被教会的属灵祝福所支撑，只要生命的绳索还能延长，就会对教会保持忠诚的福音牧师说的。

几年前，当我突然被推举为阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利公交车抗议活动的领导时，我觉得我们会得到白人教会的支持。我觉得南方的白人牧师、神父和拉比会是我们最强大的盟友。相反，有些人是彻头彻尾的反对者，拒绝理解自由运动，并歪曲其领导人；还有太多的人谨慎多于勇敢，在彩色玻璃窗的麻醉性安全感后面保持沉默。

尽管我的梦想破灭了，但我来到伯明翰，希望这个社区的白人宗教领袖能看到我们事业的正义性，并怀着深切的道德关怀，作为我们的正义冤情能到达权力结构的渠道。我曾希望你们每个人都能理解。但我又一次失望了。

我听到许多南方的宗教领袖告诫他们的崇拜者遵守取消种族隔离的决定，因为这是法律，但我渴望听到白人牧师宣布， "遵循这个法令，因为融合是道德上的权利， 因为黑人是你的兄弟。" 在黑奴遭受公然不公的情况下，我看到白人牧师站在一边，嘴里说着虔诚的无关紧要的话和神圣的琐事。在为使我们的国家摆脱种族和经济不公正而进行的强大斗争中，我听到许多牧师说， "这些都是社会问题，与福音无关。" 我看到许多教会致力于一种完全不同的世俗宗教，它在身体和灵魂之间，在神圣和世俗之间做出了奇怪的、不符合圣经的区分。

我走遍了阿拉巴马州、密西西比州和所有其他南方州。在闷热的夏日和清凉的秋日清晨，我看过南方美丽的教堂，它们高耸的尖顶指向天堂。我看到了她那巨大的宗教教育建筑的轮廓，令人印象深刻。我一次又一次地问自己： "这里是什么样的人在做礼拜？谁是他们的上帝？当巴内特州长口中流露着干预和废除的话语时，他们的声音在哪里？当华莱士州长发出反抗和仇恨的号角时 他们在哪里？当伤痕累累、疲惫不堪的黑人男女决定从自满的黑暗地牢中爬上创造性抗议的光明山丘时，他们的支持之声在哪里？"

是的，这些问题还在我的脑海里。在深深的失望中，我曾为教会的涣散而哭泣。但请放心，我的眼泪是爱的眼泪。没有深爱的地方，就不会有深深的失望。是的，我爱教会。我怎么能不爱呢？我的处境相当独特，我是传道人的儿子、孙子和曾孙。是的，我把教会看作是基督的身体。但是，哦！我们因着社会的忽视，因着害怕成为不合群的人，我们是如何使这个身体有了瑕疵和伤痕。

曾几何时，教会是非常强大的--在早期基督徒因被认为值得为他们所信的东西受苦而欢欣鼓舞的时代。在那些日子里，教会不仅仅是一个记录大众观点和原则的温度计，它还是一个改变社会风气的恒温器。每当早期的基督徒进入一个城镇，当权者就会感到不安，并立即试图将基督徒定罪为 "扰乱和平 "和 "外来的煽动者"'。但基督徒们继续前进，因为他们坚信自己是 "天国的殖民地"，被呼召服从神而不是人。他们人数不多，但承诺却很大。他们沉醉于神，不能被 "天文上的恐吓"。通过他们的努力和榜样，他们结束了杀婴和角斗比赛等古老的罪恶。现在情况不同了。当代教会常常是一个软弱无力的声音，声音不确定。所以它常常是现状的拱卫者。普通社会的权力结构远没有因为教会的存在而感到不安，反而因为教会对现状的沉默--甚至常常是声援--而感到安慰。

但是，神的审判正前所未有地临到教会身上。如果今天的教会不能重拾早期教会的牺牲精神，它就会失去真实性，失去数百万人的忠诚，被当作一个无关紧要的社交俱乐部，对二十世纪毫无意义。我每天都会遇到一些年轻人，他们对教会的失望已经变成了彻底的厌恶。

也许我又一次过于乐观了。有组织的宗教是否与现状紧密相连，无法拯救我们的国家和世界？也许我必须把信仰转向内在的灵性教会，教会中的教会，才是真正的ekklesia和世界的希望。但我再次感谢上帝，从有组织的宗教队伍中，有一些高尚的灵魂已经挣脱了顺从的麻痹性锁链，加入我们，成为争取自由的积极伙伴。他们离开了他们安全的教会，与我们一起走在乔治亚州奥尔巴尼的街道上。他们在南方的高速公路上为自由而艰难跋涉。是的，他们和我们一起进了监狱。有些人被教会开除，失去了主教和牧师同事的支持。但他们的行动是基于这样的信念：正义的失败比邪恶的胜利更强大。他们的见证是属灵的盐，在这动荡的时代，保存了福音的真谛。他们在失望的暗山中开辟了一条希望的隧道。我希望整个教会能迎接这个决定性时刻的挑战。但是，即使教会不为正义而来，我对未来也不感到绝望。我对我们在伯明翰的斗争结果并不担心，即使我们的动机目前被误解。我们会在伯明翰和全国各地达到自由的目标，因为美国的目标就是自由。虽然我们可能被虐待和蔑视，但我们的命运与美国的命运息息相关。在朝圣者在普利茅斯登陆之前，我们就在这里。在杰斐逊的笔在历史上刻下《独立宣言》的雄伟文字之前，我们就在这里。两个多世纪以来，我们的祖先在这个国家无偿地劳动；他们使棉花成为国王；他们在遭受严重的不公正和可耻的羞辱的同时，为他们的主人建造了家园--然而，从一种无底线的生命力中，他们继续繁荣和发展。如果说奴隶制的无比残酷还不能阻止我们，那么我们现在所面临的反对势必会失败。我们将赢得自由，因为我们呼应的要求中体现了我们民族的神圣遗产和上帝的永恒意志。在结束发言之前，我觉得有必要提及你发言中令我深感不安的另外一点。你热情地赞扬伯明翰警察部队维持 "秩序 "和 "防止暴力"。我怀疑如果你看到警察的狗对手无寸铁的非暴力的黑人咬牙切齿，你会不会如此热情地赞扬警察。如果你看到警察在市监狱这里对黑人的丑陋和不人道的待遇；如果你看到他们推搡和咒骂老黑奴妇女和年轻的黑奴姑娘；如果你看到他们对老黑奴男人和小男孩拳打脚踢；如果你看到他们像他们两次那样，因为我们想一起唱赞歌而拒绝给我们食物，我怀疑你是否会这么快地赞扬警察。我不能和你一起赞扬伯明翰警察局。

的确，警方在处理示威者时有一定的纪律性，在这个意义上，他们在公开场合的行为相当 "非暴力"。从这个意义上说，他们在公开场合的行为相当 "非暴力"。但目的何在？为了维护邪恶的隔离制度。在过去的几年里，我一直在宣扬，非暴力要求我们使用的手段必须和我们所追求的目的一样纯粹。我曾试图说明，用不道德的手段来达到道德的目的是错误的。但现在我必须申明，用道德的手段来维护不道德的目的，也同样是错误的，甚至可能更加错误。也许康纳先生和他的警察在公开场合相当非暴力，就像乔治亚州奥尔巴尼的普里切特局长一样，但他们用非暴力的道德手段来维护种族不公正的不道德目的。正如T.S.艾略特所说的那样。"最后的诱惑是最大的叛国。"为了错误的理由做正确的事"

我希望你能表扬伯明翰的黑人示威者 他们的勇气，他们愿意受苦，他们的惊人的纪律 在巨大的挑衅中。总有一天，南方会认识到它真正的英雄。他们将是詹姆斯-梅雷迪思，有崇高的使命感，使他们能够面对嘲笑和敌对的暴徒，有痛苦的孤独感，这是先锋生活的特点。她们将是年老、受压迫、受摧残的黑人妇女，阿拉巴马州蒙哥马利市一位七十二岁的老妇人就是象征，她带着尊严感站起来，和她的人民一起决定不坐隔离的公共汽车，她以不加修饰的深刻态度回答一位询问她的疲倦。"我的脚累了，但我的灵魂在休息。" 他们将是年轻的高中生和大学生，年轻的福音牧师和他们的一众长辈，为了良心的缘故，勇敢地、非暴力地坐在午餐柜台前，甘愿入狱。总有一天，南方会知道，当这些被剥夺继承权的上帝之子坐在午餐柜台时，他们实际上是在为美国梦中最美好的东西和我们犹太基督教传统中最神圣的价值而站出来，从而使我们的国家回到那些伟大的民主之井，而这些民主之井是建国之父在制定宪法和独立宣言时深挖出来的。

我从来没有写过这么长的一封信。恐怕这封信太长了，不能占用你宝贵的时间。我可以向您保证，如果我在一张舒适的书桌前写作，它一定会短得多，但是当一个人独自一人在狭窄的牢房里时，除了写长信、想长话、做长祷，还能做什么呢？

如果我在这封信中说了什么言过其实的话，表示无理的急躁，请您原谅我。如果我说了任何轻描淡写的话，表明我的耐心使我能够满足于比兄弟情谊更少的东西，我请求上帝原谅我。

我希望这封信能让你们的信仰坚定。我还希望，情况将很快使我有可能与你们每一个人见面，不是作为一个融合主义者或民权领袖，而是作为一个神职人员同事和一个基督教兄弟。让我们都希望种族偏见的乌云很快就会散去，深深的误解之雾将从我们被恐惧浸透的社区中散去，在不远的明天，爱和兄弟情谊的璀璨星辰将以其耀眼的美丽照耀我们伟大的国家。

为了和平和兄弟情谊，你的

马丁·路德·金

King, Martin Luther Jr.