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.
Do you really HATE that deeply, or are you just another Christian bashing hate filled jew? Remember we are at war with just about the entire world for our support of Israel. We are shedding blood, and working overtime to give to Israel to use to support duel citizenship. Yet Israel is as close as anyone can get to a religious state. If I go to Israel, can I demand that jews not where their skullcaps in government buildings (THAT WE SUBSIDIZE) or religious symbols in government buildings and courthouses, You Hypocritical monster! Do you endorse "the spitting on the cross" for converts from Christianity to Judaism, organized in Kibbutz Sa'ad and financed by the Israeli government is a an act of traditional Jewish piety? Just curious!
Yes, suggesting that there are those who would love to persecute christians, even to the point of violence, is silly and has no historical basis in fact.
You as much as admitted its a state/federal issue yet you are against the display of the monument.
Thats an incorrect stance because as I have said, the "state", hasnt established any particular religion nor has it prevented anyone from practicing theirs.
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?
Which word do you speak of? And which law has been made that is spreading it? That is the question that we must ALWAYS come back to.
What? Are you saying that any Christian who adheres & practices Ps. 24:1 ("The earth is the Lord's and EVERYTHING in it") is not a true capitalist because they don't buy into your definition of capitalism?
What a naive statement--even if you limit it only to this country.
I have personally seen otherwise in this country and it's especially true in Communistic & Islam-based countries. There are more Christians who die for their faith world-wide now than there ever was in previous rounds of oppression & persecution.
You don't know of the hatred vented toward those in Christ merely because you don't know about the author of that hate...and he doesn't have horns & a tail.
Yes, suggesting that there are those who would love to persecute christians, even to the point of violence, is silly and has no historical basis in fact.
The existence of a minute number of people who would love to harm Christians is in no way comparable to the civil rights struggles of the 1950s & 1960s. In fact, it's insulting.
If you don't realize that, there's no point in trying to explain it.
Incredibly ignorant statement.... But I expect nothing less.
You have gross conceptual errors in your understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
Right. I think it's the state's right to decide - the fed should have no say. And I also think that no government at any level should promote or hinder religion. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
Which word do you speak of?
In this case, the Commandments.
And which law has been made that is spreading it?
It isn't a law per se, its an administrative decision.
BTW, care to answer the question on state's rights concerning assisted suicide?
Really. What makes a anti-black bigot worse than an anti-christian bigot?
I dare say that Rosa Parks would have stood just as stronlgly about keeping the Ten Commandment monument in that court house as she was about not going to the back of the bus.
What is your "cause?"
That was my point.
The bigotry isn't the issue. It's the actions that flow from the bigotry.
Let me know when you start getting lynched, getting police dogs sicced on your children, you can't vote & you're drinking from a separate water fountain. Then we'll talk.
No it doesnt. It means the Alabama SC is a bunch of federal lackies. Also, the SCOTUS didnt rule against him, they denied his stay to block the removal.
And your long winded reply still doesnt answer my question.
I dont think the USA is a "Christian nation". I think it has turned into a cesspool of moral ineptitude. I dont demand this monument be placed there but I do think Moore has every right to place this monument that is visible in hundreds of federal sites, in his courthouse.
Who says I have a "cause"? I just think it's logically & tactically stupid to compare the Judge Moore circus sideshow to the civil rights movement.
Myabe you're right about Rosa Parks. If you are, so what? I don't see how it matters.
I think the point was it'd be nice to prevent things from getting that far.
What you think should be isnt fact. Constitution speaks of legislation.
In this case, the Commandments.
That isnt a religion.
It isn't a law per se, its an administrative decision.
An administrative decision forcing Alabama citizens to believe in the Commandments (or, presumably by you, Christianity)? I missed that one.
BTW, care to answer the question on state's rights concerning assisted suicide?
Its assisted murder. Naturally, the person killing themselves has every right, in a physical sense, to kill themselves but to consciously help someone else? There is moral implications.
No one is saying you dont have the right to kill yourself...the issue is do you have the right to help someone kill themselves. In my opinion, the subject is MUCH more difficult to debate than this case about the 10 Commandments rock.
Communist Connections of Dr. Martin Luther King by Chuck Morse
America maintains a longstanding tradition of analyzing the political beliefs of its leaders. Indeed, the founders protected this inalienable right with the first amendment to the Constitution. Such examinations were viewed as essential to the preservation of freedom and democracy. This is why an examination of the career of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is necessary. His influence was and continues to be immense. Anything less constitutes a dangerous abrogation of responsibility.
That King maintained communist connections are an undisputed matter of public record. This is no less significant, I would contend, than if King had maintained Nazi connections. His actions and utterances influenced generations of Americans yet we tremble with fear over discussing his beliefs because doing so means running the risk of being smeared as a racist. The irony, lost on most, is that those hurling this dastardly charge are often themselves racist by any definition of the term. But as the legendary broadcaster Edward R. Murrow was reported to have said to Fred Friendly, his TV producer, regarding their fear of broadcasting a segment on Joe McCarthy in 1956, “If the fear is in this room, lets do it. “
While Martin Luther King was by no means a hard-left witting participant in the international communist conspiracy, he nevertheless surrounded himself with hard-core communists and fellow travelers and embraced a philosophy that could be described as cultural Marxism. This embrace by King would influence generations of African-Americans much to their detriment.
The Kennedy Administration, including President John F. Kennedy himself, warned King to dis-associate himself from Communists. He responded by doing so publicly while continuing the relationships covertly. The belief that King was being used as a tool for communist manipulation of the civil rights movement led Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to order the F.B.I. to conduct wiretaps. These wiretaps would reveal the extremely active extramarital sex life of King, a Baptist Minister, but that is not germane to our subject. Perhaps the reluctance of the Kennedy Administration to get behind the civil rights movement was due to its concern over the possibility of communist infiltration.
King was close, both personally and professionally, to New York Lawyer Stanley D. Levison who was identified by highly placed communist informant Jack Childs as having been a chief conduit of Soviet funds to be dispersed to the Communist Party USA. Levison was involved in the financial, organizational, and public relations aspects of Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. According to F.B.I. wiretaps, Levison prepared King's May 1962 speech before the United Packing House Workers Convention, and his responses to questions from a Los Angeles radio station regarding the 1965 Los Angeles race riots.
According to David J. Garrow, in his book “The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr.”, published by Yale University Press, Levison assisted King in writing his book “Stride Toward Freedom, “ as well as contributions to SCLC, and recruitment of SCLC employees. Levison refused King’s offer of compensation for his services writing, “The liberation struggle [i.e., the civil rights movement] is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience.”
In June 1962, Levison recommended Hunter Pitts O'Dell for executive assistant at SCLC. According to Congressional testimony, O’Dell pled the Fifth when asked if he was a member of the CPUSA in a hearing before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on July 30, 1958. According to the FBI, O'Dell was an elected member of the National Committee of the CPUSA. It is reasonable to assume, based on conventional knowledge of the MO of the communists at the time, that Levison and O’Dell were Martin Luther King’s Soviet handlers.
Reams of documents, much of which remains classified, discuss King’s communist connections. I will end with a discussion of a speech King delivered at the Riverside Church in New York, April 4, 1967, a few days prior to the beginning of “Vietnam Week” because of the light it sheds on his philosophy. CPUSA member Bettina Aptheker, daughter of CPUSA member Herbert Aptheker, had devised “Vietnam Week “ at a December 1966 conference at the University of Chicago. The HCUA found that the U of C conference “was instigated and dominated by the CPUSA and the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America,” and was described by Attorney General Katzenbach as “substantially directed, dominated and controlled by the Communist Party. “
In his speech, King portrayed U.S. troops in Vietnam as foreign conquerors and oppressors, and he compared the United States to Nazi Germany. He stated “we herd them [the South Vietnamese people] off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met.... So far we may have killed a million of them-mostly children. What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe. “
King spoke of U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He portrayed the Communist dictator Ho Chi Minh as the victim of American aggression: “Perhaps only his [Ho Chi Minh's] sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores. “ King portrayed American policy in Vietnam and in general as motivated by a “need to maintain social stability for our investments” and saw “individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.”
Whether or not this communist agitprop was spoon fed to King by Levison or other handlers is beside the point. King said nothing against the brutal North Vietnamese or for that matter a world Communist movement that was murdering over 100 million people. Life magazine (April 21, 1967) described King's speech as “a demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” His opposition to the war was clearly not motivated by concern for the best interests of the US but by a desire for the victory of North Vietnam. His anti-capitalist sentiments and his pro-totalitarian tendencies have been destructive to African-Americans ever since.
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.