Now is not the time for reconciliation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't reconcile with the Nazis. MLK didn't reconcile with the KKK. Now we fight


From the Twitter feed of Martin O’Malley, former Maryland governor and 2016 Democrat Presidential candidate:

Now is not the time for reconciliation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t reconcile with the Nazis. MLK didn’t reconcile with the KKK. Now we fight.

And another Democrat carries on in the fine Democrat tradition of using violence to resolve political disagreements.


Isn’t he explicitly citing examples of people who led non-violent resistance efforts here?


Fascinating that when MLK’s fight against the KKK is invoked you see a call to violence by democrats. Diametrically opposed to reality. Wow.


I am not sure where I see the violence here. The word fight does not exclusively mean physical violence. The democrats have every right to fight Trump, just as the republicans had every right to fight Obama.


As in death threats to performers who said they would be part of Trump’s inauguration? Because the reaction of some to Trump’s win seems really unhinged.


This post is about the comment quoted by the OP. Why try to make it something else?


Comparisons to the Nazis are rather over-strained to say the least. I don’t particularly love or like many of your new president’s political outlooks. However a Nazi he is not. That is hyperbole of a rather overblown sort.




Bonhoeffer was a member of the plot to assassinate Hitler. Not exactly non-violent resistance.

The KKK was “action arm” of the Democrat Party. Bull Connors, William Fulbright, George Wallace, all Democrats. When have the Republicans ever had an equivalent to the radical, violent organizations like KKK, the SDS, or BLM? Democrats have always been ready to use violence to impose their political stances. From the caning of Charles Sumner, to Bleeding Kansas, to the Civil War, to the Civil Rights Struggles of the 1950s, to the riots in Ferguson, it always Democrats who first resort to violence.

Bonhoeffer was a member of the plot to assassinate Hitler. That seems pretty violent.


And perfectly justifiable also. Having his name equated as some sort of paradigm against which to illustrate how Trump is supposedly akin to the Nazis and his upcoming regime to the Third Reich is inherently bizarre.


There’s good historical evidence that Bonhoeffer never participated in any plot to kill Hitler: He certainly was against Hitler and his atrocities and no doubt did what was in his power to do as a Lutheran pastor, with connections to governmental leaders, but that seems to have been the extent of his involvement.

Per the topic of the thread, it’s massively irresponsible of Martin O’Malley to make such outlandish comparisons in such a heated political and cultural atmosphere. If he wants to see people kill each other out of a misguided sense that they are saving the nation from another tyrant, he couldn’t have made a better case for it. Such stupidity!–based on nothing more than anger than the “wrong” person was elected and his party has lost almost all it’s power in Washington–something they themselves need to take credit for instead of inciting people to resistance against a lawfully elected president of the opposing party. Sheesh! :rolleyes:


This is not a news article citation. It is just a tweet. The rules of this forum require a news article. Can you find a news article in which this tweet is mentioned? (A news article, not a blog posting.)


Please quote where O’Malley made death threats.


There is a big difference between opposition and obstruction. I fear neither republicans or democrats realize that…the continued references to extremists like the Nazi Party and KKK is really doing a disservice to what democracy, as we practice it in America, really means.


There are always “some” who are “unhinged” on both sides of the aisle. But most Democrats and most Republicans do not engage in death threats or violent behavior.


This seems a strange objection considering how much discussion Donald Trump’s tweets merit in this forum. It’s also odd that a statement directly from a major political figure only becomes news when an accredited new organization mentions it. Like a tree falling in for the forest, it only makes a sound when the New York Times reports it.:shrug:


I didn’t write the rules of this forum, but I have to abide by them. What’s the matter? You couldn’t find a qualifying news article?


Except in those days, Democrats were the ‘conservatives’ and Republicans were the ‘liberals’, broadly speaking. This started to change in the '60s with the civil rights movement and the Kennedys.

Bear in mind that many of those who initially supported Roe v. Wade were Republicans. The political landscape has certainly changed.


Weren’t there also two kinds of Democrats: Southern Democrats (the Dixiecrats) and FDR Democrats? The Democratic Party had a “big tent” in those days, something Republicans complain is lacking today among Democrats.


Sadly, this is an example of the poor job our schools do in teaching history. Democrats were progressives. Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, all were progressive. All favored a big activist government. Southern progressives opposed the black vote because it was easier to disenfranchise blacks than to fight the monied interests that typically bought poor black and poor white votes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit