I will say that I truly believe that Martin Luther King would try his best to instill and insert into peoples minds that violence is not an answer to any situation, that peaceful negotiations and actions would be the only road to travel, or path to pursue.
It seems, we are in accord--in harmony, here. Good!
Interestingly, our paths almost crossed. It was later that I learned that MLKing attended Boston University School of Theology (BUST) just before I did. In 1954 MLK graduated as a minister.
That same Fall, I--already a minister of the United Church of Canada, who had finished his first assignment--What a story that is--in Happy Valley (ironically-named) Goose Bay, Labrador--entered BUST.
I entered on a scholarship. It was a two-year post-graduate program. Even NOW, I look back with great pleasure on this excellent experience. It prepared me to work for social justice now, and for the rest of my ministry--ad infinitum.
==========================================
However, I am somewhat dismayed to read what you write next. Please, elaborate on the following:
... but I would also like to point out that peace is not always an option that is brought to the table.
it has been the use of violence that has resolved the major issues between nations throughout history , that does not mean
that we are bound to violence to solve our issues however , it
would greatly please those who finance wars if violence were
again used between nations to settle yet another dispute.
and the only ones who would gain from that war would once again
be those who financed that war.
sometimes the same group of people or entity finance both sides
of a war , so the winner does not matter to them , the only thing that matters to these few people is the gain that they realize through the financing of the war.
I might suggest that the first attack of the war should be the
house of the financiers , that attack might very well be the only attack needed in the war.
