On Martin Luther King Day, the New York Post, instead of just celebrating one of our nation's greatest civil rights leaders, took the opportunity to defend violent right-wing rhetoric. The Post managed this through one of the most astounding examples of false equivalency imaginable: that somehow because King's speech was labeled as inflammatory at the time, the right-wing is currently being unfairly attacked for its incendiary rhetoric. Sure, through the use of racist logic, King was accused of inciting violence because he called for African Americans to stand up for their civil rights, but King was all about nonviolence.

Here's how the Post set up this exercise in absurdity:

Democrats and Republicans alike -- even some of his political allies -- viewed King with everything from suspicion to blunt hostility.

And how would King's rhetoric be viewed today as recriminations about “inflammatory speech” echo in the wake of the Tucson massacre?

[...]

Had opponents succeeded in suppressing King's rhetoric on the grounds of its obviously inflammatory essence, the redemption likely never would occurred.

Let's take a look at King's rhetoric vs. the current rhetoric being spewed by some on the right. In 1964, Dr. King said “Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.” In 2009, Glenn Beck joked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi's wine.

In 1966, Dr. King called nonviolence “the only road to freedom,” and said, “Violence as a strategy for social change in America is nonexistent. All the sound and fury seems but the posturing of cowards whose bold talk produces no action and signifies nothing.” In 2010, Palin told her supporters “Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!”

In 1957, Dr. King said the nonviolent resister “is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister, but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually.” In 2010, Beck told Liberty University graduates “shoot to kill.”

See the difference? Because the New York Post apparently doesn't. The editorial concluded that “passionate oratory and fervent, even heated, debate are the bedrock upon which vibrant democracies are built -- and America will smother both at its mortal peril. Which is something Dr. King himself clearly understood.”

Yes, Dr. King did understand the power of speech to affect social change. But he also understood that the truly righteous and moral champions of social justice advocate for change not only by avoiding violent rhetoric, but by pushing their followers to respond to violence with love and courage. To claim that the right wing's rhetoric is somehow comparable is disgraceful.