When dissidents who are national heroes are said to have dark secrets or dirty hands

Comment published on New York Times blog in response to opinion essay by Barbara Ransby, “A Black feminist’s response to attacks on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy,” June 3, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/opinion/martin-luther-king-fbi.html#commentsContainer&permid=100779544:100779544:

MLK, for instance. Besides invoking racist memes of Black men as rapists, this calumny is irrelevant, of course, and these are the FBI's dirty tactics, not those of thinking. The point of our honoring King is not to support his sainthood. Saints can be prayed to or painted, and are heroes, as prophets, which is arguably what King was, need not be. Those who are political movement leaders are important for their cause. Philosopher, writer, preacher, and leader, he matters for what he said, did, and inspired. His message, which was about such things as Black equality and social peace, depends for its validity and continuing ability to inspire us only on its truth.

Anyone who wants to besmirch a thinker or political activist hero ought to have the duty to show how the taint they claim to have found lessens or invalidates what the person said and their cause. Once you get into ideas, the substance of what any cause is about, the bar for rigor of thinking should be high enough that readers are not misled or, frankly here, insulted.

I admire King, perhaps our nation's greatest political leader since Roosevelt. But what matters was the ideas, their truth, and the necessity of acting on them, bettering our society. Admittedly, it is easier to focus on this if the messenger was pure, not tainted, especially by any very nasty personal sin. We rightly prefer our preachers and prophets more saint than scoundrel.

If we are mature enough, we heed the message, for it is true, and the calumny but a stupid noise. Stupidity is the enemy of justice.