Read the excerpt below and answer the question.

we should never forget that everything adolf hitler did in germany was "legal" and everything the hungarian freedom fighters did in hungary was "illegal." it was "illegal" to aid and comfort a jew in hitler's germany. even so, i am sure that, had i lived in germany at the time, i would have aided and comforted my jewish brothers. if today i lived in a communist country where certain principles dear to the christian faith are suppressed, i would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws. (paragraph 18 in “letter from a birmingham jail”)

in at least 100 words, explain the point king is making with these two examples of civil disobedience.

The point the king is trying to make is, essentially, that while what Hitler did was considered legal and while what the Hungarian Freedom Fighters did was illegal, it is all a matter of human rights. While what Hitler did may have been legal, it was not morally correct to kill 6 million people. And while it was illegal to aid the Jews and provide comfort, it is morally correct to help these people in a time of need, as stated by the golden rule of every religion, do unto others as you would like to have done to you. It is mostly based on what people believe is correct and if certain people believed what Hitler believed, they would not have that certain moral correctness. So in standing up for what you believe in, a change can be made based on the actions; illegal or not.

Counterclaim text which gives it a defensive manner