Dr. King notes that the priests are concerned about the “willingness of the black man to break the laws” (King pg.218). He understands their anxiety about this issue. King then refers to the “1954 Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation in public schools,” praising it for its civil rights initiative (King p.218). By citing the Supreme Court decision, remind the reader that even a credible source like the Supreme Court supports racial equality. Since most citizens respect the law, adding the Supreme Court decision may convince the reader to adopt the belief of racial equality, then turns into a rhetorical question and answers the question, “. One might ask, “How can one advocate breaking some laws and obeying other laws” (King 218) This question causes King to admit that his intention seems paradoxical as he urges people to follow “the decision of Supreme Court of 1954 outlawing segregation." while apparently willing to break laws (King pg.218). He insists that this is not a paradox, but rather a recognition of the distinction between “just and unjust” laws (King p.218). He insists that everyone has a “legal” and “moral responsibility” to follow just laws, but equally “has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King p.218). To provide further proof of his claims, King alludes to St.