Dr. James Dobson: "We're Not Going To The Back of The Bus"

FoxNews

[Happy2BMe]

Dr. James Dobson, a well-known and respected national Christian leader in speaking at a rally in front of the Alabama Courthouse containing the disputed monument of the Ten Commandments compared the ongoing struggle with that of the Black equal rights movement of the 1950's.

Dr. Dobson described the irony of how in 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to "Go to the back of the bus." by racially-driven bigots sparked a national equal rights movment and said that another national "movement" was now underway to protect the rights of Christians.

Dr. Dobson declared, "We are not going to the back of the bus!" in alluding to a growing consensus of Christian-Americans who would no longer tolerate being treated as citizens with lesser rights.

[ArGee]

just because an evangelical says he is a Christian, it doesn't mean that he actually is one.

G-d will judge James Dobson, but in my estimation this does not apply to him.

Shalom.

[Consort]

[Colofornian]

religion and state are not good together...

Ah, the compartmentalist. So, Bob, do you check your religious beliefs at the door of whatever job you hold? What corner of the week do you practice your beliefs & then wear another face for other folks to see elsewise?

[Faith]

The Buddhists and Musllims did not establish this country. The Judeo-Christian ethic formed the basis on which our founding fathers developed our Constitution. It is because of these very documents that Buddhists and Muslims are free to practice their own religions in this great nation.

[Robert_Paulson2]

two words:
spam & baloney.

[gdani]

Sorry -- but the two are worlds apart.

Different only in degree

That's *quite* a degree.

[Registered]

Robert, rather than judge Dobson harshly, I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt here. He's never shown "self exaltation" in the past and has always seemed sincere with how God has directed his life and his work.

[ArGee]

My point is that in America today, if you want them defended, they have to be wrongs like sodomy, not "rights" like worshipping a moral G-d.

Shalom.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

LOL. You are clueless.

[freeeee]

But dont you think there is a state/federal conflict here?

Certainly.

I also think that many of the people upset about this violation of state's rights are fair weather friends of states rights in general. Sure, they'll jump on the states rights bandwagon when Clinton is in office, or when the fed takes down the Commandments.

The rest of the time, they couldn't care less and celebrate the feds latest powers, because they happen to like who is in charge.

Opportunistic hypocrites.

[smith288]

people instinctively know that religion and state are not good together... and see it as UNconstitutional.

No YOU view it that way. Its moot anyways because viewing something as UNconsititutional doesnt make it unconstitutional. The main purpose of the 1st is so that no congress (be it federal or state through the 14th amm.) can make laws respecting and establishment any religion.

So it all comes down to you answering this: "Who made law that is unconstitutional to force the public to be a particular religion or preventing the public from practicing their own?"

[votelife]

you make a good point, but if the person who put that their (Moore) feels that way to have the monument there, then doesn't it NOT matter at all whether or not it's there regarding the fairness of the case? What I mean is, even if Moore didn't put that their, he still feels strongly about Christianity, and how does the fact that people KNOW he's Christian change how he would rule anyways. To put another way, taking out the monumement will not change Moore and it will not change his verdicts.

[Colofornian]

That's *quite* a degree.

What? You think firehoses was the opening salvo of the civil rights movement. Re-read your history, then. They didn't get to the firehose stage until many years into public protesting & a few years of mass-transit boycotts.

The "back-of-the-bus" analogy talks about this being an "enough is enough" moment...don't go trepsing off into the heart of where this could lead when Christians have not yet shown they are provoked enough...(other than these few leaders)

[gdani]

The rest of the time, they couldn't care less and celebrate the feds latest powers....

In particular when the Feds are involving themselves in such matters as medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide & if/when a gay marriage law gets enacted in a state.

[tame]

He was probably out theatening people with HELL if they didn't "confess" the same way he did...

Jesus promised people HELL if they didn't confess him as Lord.

[votelife]

many if not most who say the 10 Commandments forbids killing are more than willing to make exceptions for unborn children...

[The Green Goblin]

And anyone who holds to a religion at variance with the Ten Commandments, probably is in court on criminal charges, and they're probably guilty to boot.

You're saying that a Hindu is a criminal because he worships other gods and violates the First Commandment?

[freeeee]

Exactly.

Then, it is all somehow 'different'.

I find their newfound 'respect' for state's rights to be shallow and short lived.

[smith288]

Opportunistic hypocrites.

Be that as it may... So you prefer to just be wrong about the argument than be a hypocrite and support a states right to decorate their court house however they please? You can call me a hypocrite... fine. I hold my religious freedoms pretty dear to me. If I cannot spread the word of God freely then what else is there?

[HitmanLV]

Haha! You noticed that, huh? Truth is, the commandments forbids murder, not killing. I think you can make a case that snuffing out a human life for convenience sake can be considered murder, which is why I never validate the death penalty on economic grounds. It stands firmly on retribution grounds.