I extremism, and history. King starts to name the

I feel that he attacked the clergy quite frequently in the section. An inherent attack was through the examples Jason mentioned previously because it indicates the clergymen’s evident simpleness due to the fact that they cannot distinguish between civil disobedience and anarchy. Their straightforwardness is attacked further with King implying that they, the supposed moral leaders, classify justice and injustice to be the same. Wisely: In my opinion, this section is mostly King’s introduction of the idea that moral concerns are reflected in laws because of his scrutiny of just and unjust laws. He states the former protects the man and can be applied to anybody. Whereas, unjust laws degrade the man and is limited to affect certain classes of people. He makes a variety of legal distinctions to illustrate his legal mind. He makes a distinction between what a real democracy and a fake system that restricts African Americans from voting. He also points out the difference between a law’s content and how it should be applied. In general, he clarifies on the topic of what it means to be a just and unjust law.TTS: Marvelous responses! Now for the next one which starts off with King saying I must make two honest confessions and ends with now this approach is being termed extremist.Jason: This section marks King’s release of his restraint. Compared to previously where he was overly calm, King feels more comfortable with making an immediate challenge to his audience. Additionally, the repetition “must” demonstrates that he is not persuading his audience to take action, but he is insisting them to take action.Viphu: In particular, King’s subject becomes more inclusive and abstract with his particular focus on time, extremism, and history. King starts to name the white moderate as his principal adversary which makes it known that he is no longer pretends that the eight clergymen makes up the entirety of his audience. The shift to a more general and conceptual focus confirms that the letter’s scope is not only limited to what is happening in Birmingham.Wisely: What I see is that his focus in this section is mainly on the nature of extremism. He takes the time to discuss on dangerous extremists such as a few members of the Nation of Islam to act as a warning to his audience that the individuals that are kept from pursuing action that is nonviolent will instead pursue the use of violence. He wants moderates to know that in order to avoid violence, they need to assist nonviolent action with its goal of justice. In a way, his approach to provoking actions is an indirect blackmail.