How would you approach writing an essay explaining why you agree or disagree with Martin Luther King's statement found in the following passage of...

In his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," in the passage in question, Martin Luther asserts that nothing is more damaging to a cause than what he calls "lukewarm" supporters of that cause. King is certainly correct to assert "shallow understanding" and "lukewarm acceptance" of a cause are far more damaging than outright rejection of a cause. The more the masses fail to fully understand and embrace a cause, the harder it becomes to fulfill that cause. We can see examples of such ignorance and rejection in any cause worth fighting for. One contemporary cause concerns the fight for taking action to prevent further climate change. To write the above essay, one would have to pick a controversial cause and research where supporters stand on the issue.

In his letter, King argues nothing is more damaging to the African-American pursuit of justice and equality than well-wishers who say they approve of the African-American cause but not the means for achieving it, referring to nonviolent protest. The well-wishers, such as the "white moderates," don't approve the means of achieving the African-American cause because those well-wishers prefer civil order to civil rights:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in this stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice.

He further argues that, by preferring order to justice, white moderates are preferring a false sense of peace, a peace with the "absence of tensions" but also lacking in social justice. He asserts white moderates do not know what true justice really looks like and what it takes to achieve true justice, and this makes white moderates say they support the cause but not the means; he calls this a "shallow understanding" and says it is more thwarting than "absolute misunderstanding."

When we look at contemporary causes, like taking an active stance to prevent further climate change, we see that there are supporters, opponents, and those in between. Many people have already been convinced climate change is real and a man-made occurrence that needs to be put under control, whereas others, who don't downright reject climate change as real but rather straddle the fence, saying it's real but doubting it is a man-made problem that must immediately be solved by men.

Rebecca Kaplan and Ellen Uchimiya of CBS News report that Jeb Bush was one of the presidential candidates who straddled the fence, saying climate change is real but doubting science has given convincing evidence to prove the problem is man-made:

The climate is changing. . . [but] I don't think the science is clear on what percentage is man-made and. . . what percentage is natural. It's convoluted. And for people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant ("Where the 2016 Republican Candidates Stand on Climate Change").

He is reported to have gone on to say that countries need to cut back on carbon emissions, but claims the United States does not need to because the United States has already increased its natural gas production through fracking, an equally environmentally controversial issue. His lukewarmness spreads misinformation and lessens critical public support of measures to fight climate change.

One can argue that Jeb Bush's "lukewarm" stance on climate change would be devastating to the environment. Hence, as King asserts, it is the "lukewarm" supporters who are the most damaging to a cause.