The woman who changed history 60 years ago

rosa

ROSA  Parks changed history 60 years ago this week  when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The courageous act propelled her to the front of the civil rights movement, and she remains a symbol of the struggle to this day

It all began in December 1955, when Parks was arrested for civil disobedience: She had refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a crowded bus in the racially segregated town of Montgomery, Alabama. Her defiance sparked the push for racial equality, which brought civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. into the public eye and changed the world forever.

She said she never planned to be arrested for breaking a racist law in 1955, but realised at the time that she had to make a stand.

Great occasions do not make heroes or cowards; they simply unveil them.

Parks was in the right place at the right time and she had the courage to act.
Parks’s civil disobedience kicked off a massive boycott and Supreme Court decision that affirmed that Alabama’s segregation laws were unconstitutional.

Rosa Parks once said: “People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day… No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.”

Parks died in October of 2005, and was given memorial services to reflect her heroic legacy in Detroit, Montgomery, and Washington, D.C. She was the first woman in history to lie in state in the capitol rotunda, as well as the first American who was not a government official and the second African-American to do so.

Rosa Parks’ impact on history is undeniable.

 

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “The woman who changed history 60 years ago

  1. The woman who changed history 60 years ago .
    Tell me when all the mainstream Religions have females as leaders.
    Until then religions should be ashamed.
    “”O”
    All the entities have a sex organ !
    “”WHY”????

    Like

    • There is hope, CB.

      There are landmark achievements like the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, and the election of Dr. Ingrid Mattson as the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America.

      Sikhism is especially strong in recognizing and practicing the equality of men and women. It advocates active and equal participation in the congregation, in academia, in healthcare and the military, among other aspects of society. Female subordination, the practice of taking a father’s or husband’s last name, practicing rituals that imply dependence or subordination, are all alien to Sikh principles. That does not mean that Sikhs always practice what they preach, but the theological basis for equality is firm.

      Two major religions in the world claim a woman founder. One is Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. The other is the Seventh Day Adventists, founded by Ellen White.

      Moreover, women are not only finding their theological voice, they are developing new attitudes, believing that they can preach, they can lead, and they can do it as well as men. They look to the women who are already bishops and renowned preachers like Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church/Disciples, who preached at the official Inaugural Prayer Service of President Barack Obama. And they ask themselves, why not me? Role models are producing a multiplier effect.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-fiedler/women-religious-leaders_b_766006.html?ir=Australia

      Like

    • Female Christian Leaders

      There are many thousands more

      Bobbie Houston — Hillsong
      Bobbie Houston runs the Hillsong Church with her husband, Brian. Both have worked heavily to encourage women and youths to join churches and learn about the Bible.
      Holly Wagner — Oasis LA
      Holly Wagner is a busy person in her church community, running the Oasis Church with her husband, Philip Wagner. She serves as a champion for women’s needs and believes in breaking the barriers that some churches have set for them.
      Nadia Bolz-Weber — Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
      Nadia Bolz-Weber is a hard one to miss, given she’s covered in tattoos and speaks with an attitude. But that’s all a part of her charm. She’s drawn hundreds of people in to see her speak and preach the word of God from a much different standpoint, according to a profile on her by The Washington Post. Her speeches usually highlight the fact that it’s OK to be unique and that people don’t need to be the same.
      Beth Moore — Living Proof Ministries
      A college Bible studies class changed everything for Beth Moore. She now heads the Living Proof Ministries with her husband, Keith. They’ve raised their daughters to be a part of the church, too.
      Joyce Meyer — Joyce Meyer Ministries
      Joyce Meyer is not only a preacher and speaker of God, but she’s also a best-selling author who offers instructional videos about religion and spirituality on her website. Meyer’s church is a nonprofit organization that is looking to teach people about the Gospel.
      Anita C. Hill — ReconclingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation
      Anita C. Hill — not to be confused with professor Anita Hill — is a famous pastor who has worked in Minnesota and North and South Dakota. Among many of her beliefs, she’s often been an advocate for LGBT members to join her church.
      Christine Caine — Equip & Empower Ministries
      Christine Caine has made quite an impression on the religious. From the outback of Australia, Caine and her husband Nick have done well to run the Equip & Empower Ministries as well as the A21 Campaign, which aims to strike out human trafficking.
      Victoria Osteen — Lakewood Church
      Victoria Osteen has gained a significant amount of popularity from her husband, Joel Osteen, who runs one of the biggest megachurches in the nation. Victoria has been known to speak on her own and work as the co-pastor of the Lakewood Church that Osteen runs primarily.
      Bernice King — former New Birth Missionary Baptist Church
      Bernice King has been one of the more famous female pastors throughout history, especially because she is a child of Martin Luther King Jr. She was an elder of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, but she retired from that in 2011, according to the Christian Post.
      Heidi Neumark — Trinity Lutheran Church
      Heidi Neumark has her experience really working for her. She’s served at the Trinity Lutheran Church since 2003, and before that worked as a pastor of the Transfiguration Lutheran Church in New York.

      Read more at http://national.deseretnews.com/article/2079/15-Christian-women-who-are-changing-the-world.html#mbTkPRlGYbTWTiF7.99

      Like

  2. Pingback: The woman who changed history 60 years ago | Christians Anonymous

  3. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october/50-women-you-should-know.html
    Christian women who want to pursue influential roles in politics, the church, and other sectors of public life in the United States and Canada have never before had more opportunities to do so. As the following profiles in our cover package show, they are taking advantage of those opportunities in spades. It’s not just a golden moment for Christian women, of course, but for the entire church, as we benefit from the fruit of their manifold gifts.

    Like

      • You are ignorant about this CB/atheist thinking.
        According to New Testament scholar Dr. Frank Stagg and classicist Evelyn Stagg, the synoptic Gospels of the canonical New Testament contain a relatively high number of references to women. Evangelical Bible scholar Gilbert Bilezikian agrees, especially by comparison with literary works of the same epoch.Neither the Staggs nor Bilezikian find any recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. These writers claim that examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women Starr writes that of all founders of religions and religious sects, Jesus stands alone as the one who did not discriminate in some way against women. By word or deed he never encouraged the disparagement of a woman.
        From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means Kenneth E. Bailey[ spent 40 years as a Presbyterian professor of New Testament in Egypt, Lebanon, Jerusalem and Cyprus. He writes about Christianity from a Middle Eastern cultural view. He finds evidence in several New Testament passages that Jesus had women disciples.
        you can read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%27_interactions_with_women

        Like

      • “Tell me when all the mainstream Religions have females as leaders.”

        You were shown to be ignorant of the facts. Live with it.
        How many female atheist leaders killed in the millions? None. Shame atheists shame. Looks silly doesn’t it.

        Like

    • Alexie :-Here are 50 influential religious women making change in the world today.
      Well what does it say about any entity.
      Why would there be need for change?
      According to some was not the world set up by the entity perfect to start with .
      There are only two choices the believers can have :-
      [1]
      The entity intentionally decided females should be discriminated.
      [2]
      The male leaders of almost every religion over the past fifty thousand years decided females should get the crap treatment

      Like

      • “The male leaders of almost every religion over the past fifty thousand years decided females should get the crap treatment”

        50,000 years! Well, there goes any logic you might have.
        As for many thousands of years societies were patriarchal whether religious or not. In fact Jesus propelled women further than any other.
        I wonder how women faired in athiestic societies of the past.
        I am sure millions died during the soviet era, Chinese revolution, Vietnam and many other wonderful regimes.

        Like

      • “Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas. Despite their supposed love of science and rationality, many of them are nearly as quick as their religious counterparts to abandon reason in order to justify regressive views about women.

        Sam Harris, a prominent atheist author who has previously been criticized for his knee-jerk Islamophobic tendencies, recently came under fire when he added women to the category of people he makes thoughtless generalizations about.”
        http://www.alternet.org/belief/dominant-male-atheist-leaders-seem-have-problem-women

        Like

      • “The reality of sexism in freethought is not limited to a few famous leaders; it has implications throughout the small but quickly growing movement. Thanks to the internet, and to popular authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris, atheism has greater visibility than at any time since the 18th-century Enlightenment. Yet it is now cannibalizing itself. For the past several years, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and online forums have become hostile places for women who identify as feminists or express concern about widely circulated tales of sexism in the movement.”http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement#.hhDB1zPZqx

        Like

      • In an Aug. 6 blog post at Scientific American (since deleted, but accessible through that archived link because on the Internet, everything is forever), atheist author and heroine Karen Stollznow decried the harassment—including but not limited to unwanted advances, suggestive language, and “groping”—that she and others report as a too-common experience for women at atheist gatherings.

        Around the same time, another woman added fuel to the fire with a Youtube video describing the sexual “assault” she suffered at event in the “atheist scene.” (Warning: language and thematic content.) These claims and others seem to have sent the online atheist community on a journey of self-discovery, with atheist bloggers, forum members, and combox respondents wondering: Are these just overblown incidents involving a few hysterical gals, or do atheists (who are, at these gatherings anyway, overwhelmingly male in number) have a sexual harassment problem?

        http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/the-war-on-atheist-women

        Like

  4. Why aren’t women flocking to movement atheism?
    What strikes me is the maleness of the “New Atheist” phenomenon. The stereotyped picture of a sea of ponytailed males at the atheist conference is not just a stereotype. As Green points out, survey information reveals a huge gender disparity. Of the U.S. population as a whole, women make up more than half, 52 percent. But according to Pew Research Center data, among declared atheist/agnostics, women account for only 36 percent. Whoa!

    There’s a logic to all-male institutions, as to all-female ones. But show me a party to which women are invited but that they overwhelmingly choose to avoid, and I’ll show you a party to which I’d ask you to remember not to invite me.

    By contrast, other faith affiliations reflect the overall population, or favor women slightly. For example, white Evangelical Christians are 55 percent female, Catholics 52 percent, African-American Protestants 57 percent.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/26/why-arent-women-flocking-to-movement-atheism/

    Like

      • I agree with much of what you say, CB. The argument is that the masculine noun is used for all genders, as ‘actors’ include ‘actresses’, ‘dogs’ include ‘bitches’, etc. But behind it all the bias exists.

        I believe it is not always a disparagement. The genders can be seen as equal in value, but with different roles. We are only now recognising that masculine and feminine attributes in the human brain are not clear cut, but on a somewhat sliding scale.

        Like

      • Why Male? Well by your thoughts it must be a religious thing!
        Do you know where the word male comes from? What it means. Give you a clue. It means mind, to think. Technically it means human. You can work out the rest as to why we now have female. Clue, it was not always that way.
        But if you wish you can blame the development of language on religious folk. Next you will blame us for the words black and white.

        Like

      • Alexie :-
        Next you will “blame” us for the words black and white.
        I am not thrusting “BLAME” onto anyone .
        I am pointing out the inconsistencies and the gaping holes .
        .I know a man who as a teenager was fantastic.
        He unfortunately married a emotional vampire .
        What he is today is totally unrecognizable as the same person.
        Denial of his own situation is that strong .
        In his own mind there is nothing wrong with his logic.
        But from my view he is lost.
        Everyone is a victim of their own mindset some to a major amount .
        When you consider a very large number have classifiable mental issues and the heads of many corporations are psychopaths .
        But of course in the minds of many on this blog the heads of the religions are excluded.
        As for my own mind with my own flawed thinking how could I blame others.
        So I will not trust what I think so I see no reason to judge others .
        To me everything is in flux and all around are just pumping out their mental faults

        Like

      • I don’t see the derivation of English words having much bearing on the subject.. Anyway, I’ve never seen a link between male and mind.

        Man and mind? Very few authorities equate ‘man’ with ‘men’ – from mensa – as in ‘mental’, ‘government’, etc.

        Man just meant person. Postman, chairman, milkman.

        A female is a male who suckles. A woman was wif-man and a man was wer-man. ‘Man’ was common to both. But common usage is what matters now.

        Like

      • alexie on December 5, 2015 at 16:38 said:
        “So I will not trust what I think”
        Then all is hopeless for you.
        ……………………………………………
        That rather shocks me. If we were all prepared to reconsider our thoughts the world would be a better place. Reconsidering does not necessarily mean abandoning them, we might well find them freshly convincing. But we could at least consider that we MIGHT be wrong.

        Like

    • Why does it shock you?
      That he trusts not his own thoughts. So anything he says cannot be trusted. Or that I said all is hopeless for him. If one truly believes one cannot trust your own thoughts than logically all is hopeless. It is of course not true. He can trust at least some of his thoughts. one cannot live without that. Thus crushing is once again wrong about the supposed illusion of his life. That one cannot trust thinking.
      He also stated, “Everyone is a victim of their own mindset some to a major amount ……To me everything is in flux and all around are just pumping out their mental faults”

      Are we indeed all victims? is everything just mental faults? Indeed not or else all is hopeless.

      Like

      • I guess, Alexei, his justification for his thoughts, doubtful ones or otherwise, is subject to data that we do not have. I don’t believe it is for us to question. I believe God has you and CB on different but ‘right’ paths.

        Like

      • True about data. But we can only go on what we say and others say. To not trust ones thoughts, or others is but hopeless thinking. Why bother saying anything then? If indeed we just pump out mental faults, we cannot question anything nor can we provide any answers at all.

        Like

      • Ak\lexie
        What your actually stating is you believe you are incapable of being wrong on one subject.
        On that subject you assume you gain a reward.
        Your difficulty is to persuade all those who doubt their own thoughts as to what the universe is let alone your version.
        And I am not assuming a reward.
        I realize my limits and just ponder those who believe they have no limit

        Like

      • “What your actually stating is you believe you are incapable of being wrong on one subject.”

        False premise. I said no such thing. Can you trust what you wrote? You have no trust in it so why ask it?

        Like

      • Alexie
        We view the universe with far from perfect senses then come to a view with a brain fat from perfect.
        Unfortunately people don,t take that into account.
        A very simple test to illustrate the flaws in humans is the whisper challenge .
        Homo Sapiens are very far from perfect in every way.
        You are only deluding yourself when you claim to know the truth .

        Like

      • “You are only deluding yourself when you claim to know the truth”

        Since you do not trust your own thoughts and are only pumping our mental faults I cannot in anyway can consider what you say as anything close to truth.

        Like

      • Since you do not trust your own thoughts and are only pumping our mental faults I cannot in anyway can consider what you say as anything close to truth.

        “”Well of course””
        But that is the point !
        I have enouph understanding of myself to realize my view of EVERYTHING is flawed.
        I have no need to add the crap views of others .
        Especially those who aim is to spin a reason they believe their important.
        I am not really what you could classify as a atheist.hence the name change.

        Like

      • Alexei, are you even trying to understand what CB is saying? Sometimes I know we don’t express ourselves as clearly as we would wish, but you could try to see. You’re really at cross purposes, arguing about two different angles.

        Then of course if you are determined to not understand, just go ahead. As far as I’m concerned I prefer others to have the last word, regardless of my opinion.

        Like

      • Hi Strewth, the problem is that it seems CB doesn’t seem to know himself what he is trying to say. I think he is at cross purposes with himself. He says his view of everything is flawed and yet says everyone else’s view is wrong.. That is illogical.

        Like

      • Well Bryan, you know CB better than I do, so I have to admit my thinking could have been flawed! I thought that’s what he was saying, too, that some of his thinking MIGHT be flawed. Not that all of his thoughts were faulty

        In fact he seems sure, as I am, of the thought that our thought processes do not automatically yield omniscience. How could it be otherwise when there is so much diversive thought in the world?

        He is not saying all his thinking IS wrong, nor that others here ARE wrong, just acknowledging that possibility.

        I know CB’s posts are often difficult to follow. I don’t know the reason. These most recent ones seem reasonable and logical to me. He doubts himself, but what reasonable person has never had doubts? Not only Thomas doubted, so did Gideon. So did Sarah and Abraham when promised a child.

        I admire the fact that he is open to change, and in fact .he says “I am not really what you could classify as a atheist.hence the name change.”. If this man is in the process of change, perhaps derision will not help.

        Like

  5. bryanpattersonfaithworks
    on December 8, 2015 at 09:29 said:
    Hi Strewth, the problem is that it seems CB doesn’t seem to know himself what he is trying to say. I think he is at cross purposes with himself. He says his view of everything is flawed and yet says everyone else’s view is wrong.. That is illogical.

    Sorry Bryan !!
    You are in fact stating that some people on this planet are PERFECT.
    Their input receptors gather data with ZERO distortion across the entire scale of the universe.
    Then their brain performs calculations to the end of numbers with ZERO errors.
    Please Bryan what is their name ??
    Do you realize how stupid your comment is ??

    Like

      • So If you don,t “BELIEVE” there is anyone with zero flaws in data collection and processing that information.
        Then how could anyone claim to know the real truth ?

        Like

      • CB, there is no point in continuing. Of course there is real truth, although our perceptions of real truth can differ. We all know it is true that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.

        But we would see it differently from a space ship.

        Doubting the belief in a sunrise and sunset is not doubting its truth, just being able to see beyond that phenomenon. It’s not worth arguing about.

        Like

      • And there is the bedrock.
        With such a claim from such a imperfect ,flawed ,limited ability,BIASED and after a reward I have to stop myself from LOL .
        It makes no difference to me what is outside this universe.
        Homo Sapiens have not even worked out what is the universe itself.
        And most probably will never be able to prove it 100% .
        To “attempt” to prove the theories Homo Sapiens would have to build a partial accelerator the size of this solar system and have the energy output of the sun .
        Good luck blundering the galaxy to gather the materials to build such a structure.
        As for “TRUST”
        I can trust your ego to cut out that what bruises .

        Like

  6. Strewth
    Of course there is real truth, although our perceptions of real truth can differ.

    MMMMM
    What,s with the “”Of course””
    What you presume we see the real truth.

    And this part is a real treat
    “although our perceptions of real truth can differ”
    So now we have a “”REAL TRUTH” for every group of neurons.
    For every brain that has existed is existing and possible exist .
    The problem with that is the logic : zero quantity.
    The issue is the failings to view things perfectly and analyze perfectly.
    There is a word for that
    “”PERCEPTION”
    I prefer to call it “”DISTORTION””

    Like

    • And the distortion can take many forms.
      The slew rate is not fast enough.
      The circuit has faulty connection.
      The power supply is not regulated
      The path is overloaded with resistance.
      The is main board has a short circuit.
      The pressure is to great
      And look out there is cavitation.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s