Posted on 08/28/2003 10:38:47 AM PDT by 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.
You'd have to want a centralized govt to be a socialist ... a rag head liberal too --- to stop religious rights and liberties of the states and individuals --- the united soviet states of iran - nkorea --- cuba !
It was merely a picture used to illustrate the ridiculousness of comparing the Judge Moore sideshow to the civil rights struggles of the 50s & 60s. Should I have used a lynching photo instead?
Maybe you should suggest to Dobson that *he* study the civil rights movement. After all, there were many before Rosa Parks who refused to give up their seats.
If one is a Christian, one does not live by the Ten Commandments. Paul was very specific in Romans chapter 7, that while he desired to follow the law, he was incapable of doing so, and cited the commandment against coveting as the best example of his inability (a good example, because unlike the actions addressed in most of the other commandments, coveting is really a sin of the heart -- it isn't seen on the outside). Peter made similar claims of inability to keep the Law, including a great comment in one of his defenses in the book of Acts whereby he attacked the religious leaders of Israel for not being able to keep the Law themselves.
A Christian does not claim to live by the Law, not even the Ten Commandments, but claims to live by the indwelling life of Christ. It is by divine enabling, resulting from the union of the believer's spirit with the Spirit of Christ (not symbolically, but actually), that one's life exemplifies the ideals of the moral teachings of the Bible. A feverish effort to apply the rules and regulations of the Law to oneself through the power of self and one's will is simply "legalism." A person may exhibit some of the behaviors required of the Law, including the Ten Commandments, but remember what Jesus said...If a man even LOOKS at a woman lustfully, he's fallen short of the commandment against adultry. Pretty tough standard. So tough, no one can attain it. Which is why we all need divine help to live a life pleasing to God, and that is why God made it possible 1) for our sins to be dealt with on the cross of Christ and by faith, and 2) for Christ to come and live in our own spirits, motivating and enabling one to fulfill God's purpose in their lives, and where the fruit of that union are righteousness and Christ-likeness.
So, the question isn't whether you've lived at variance with the Ten Commandments, but whether you've received Christ.
The Ten Commandments, as displayed in the entrance to the Alabama Supreme Court, are symbolic of our nation's recognition of our dependence on divine assistance, and a recognition that our laws have a basis in God's moral law (which are representative of His character). The Seculofacists want to rid our culture of all symbols our our reliance upon God, or of following of His moral law.
Can you cite any of the law which forms the basis of the tenets of any of these examples you have noted that in turn forms the basis for the establishment of the code of law in the US?
Did any of the founders of the US of A quote any of these examples upon which they based a legal position in the formation of the US of A or the drafting of the Constitution itself?
Lastly,... all of the above for any one on the 50 individual States which constitute the US of A.
We're all waiting.
Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
You can call me a hypocrite... fine.
Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically. But lets find out: Do you support the fed interfering with states determining their own assisted suicide laws?
If I cannot spread the word of God freely then what else is there?
In this Commandments case, the question is not whether private citizens can spread the Word freely. That is not even up for debate. You can and should be able to put the Commandments on your car, on your shirt, on a sign, on the radio, on TV, on your front lawn, on the internet, ad infinitum...
The question is whether the Government can spread the Word. This is quite a different issue, unless you contend that you cannot spread the Word without the government's help. Is that the case?
I would say that the first 4 are definitely not universally accepted. And violating #10 is the basis of capitalism.
Ya - I know, huh.
Just like those poor suckers who followed G.W. across the Potomoc River and thouse dumb slugs who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Stalin purged them out. Lenin did. They came back. And now there is more religious freedom in Russia than there is in Montgomery, Alabama.
It's that type of hyperbole that hurts your cause, not helps it.
I found this on Hammurabi's code in the Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org
Of all the ancient legislations, that of the Hebrews alone can stand comparison with the Babylonian Code. The many points of resemblance between the two, the Babylonian origin of the father of the Hebrew race, the long relations of Babylon with the land of Amurru, have prompted modern scholars to investigate whether the undeniable relation of the two codes is not one of dependence. The conclusions arrived at may be breifly stated as follows. Needless to notice that Hammiurabi is in no wise indebted to the Hebrew Law. As to the latter, its older part, the Code of the Covenant (Exod., xxi, 1- xxiii, 19), is intended for a semi-nomadic people, and therefore cannot depend on Hammurabi's enactments. Both codes derive from a common older source, to be sought in the early customs of the Semitic race, when Babylonians, Hebrews, Arabs, and others were still forming one people. The work of the Hebrew lawgiver consisted in codifying these ancient usages as he found them, and promulgating them under Yahweh's authority. The early Israelite code may, perhaps, seem imperfect in comparison with the Babylonian corpus juris, but, whilst the latter is founded upon the dictates of reason, the Hebrew Law is grounded on the faith in the one true God, and is pervaded throughout by an earnest desire to obey and please Him, which reaches its highest expression in the Law of Deuteronomy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.