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

FoxNews

[Denver Ditdat]

I expected an anti-Christian response soon enough.... Seems like any post that deals with a Christian leader always gets knee-jerk Christian leader-haters within a few minutes....

Roger that. The response time of the haters is near-instantaneous on any post mentioning Catholicism.

[Phaedrus]

Add white males to the list of those who will not allow others to label us or treat us as second class citizens. Personally, I simply won't tolerate it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

ROFLMAO - what a load of speculation - of course, Morse is an idiot, so what could I expect? Besides, was King wrong in his basic goal? Do you expect that King would adore America after the way his people were treated in the South? Besides, I would definitely expect some attempts by Communists to approach the Civil Rights Movement - after all, there were many million offically repressed blacks, all ripe for the picking.

Frankly, the South should be prostrate and thankful that the Civil Rights Movement gelled under King as opposed to some radical - had I been black and living in the South in the 50s and early 60s, you dang well better believe I'd have taken the violent route.

[freeeee]

Concerning assisted suicide - The question to you is: Regardless of what that decision is, who makes the decision of whether its legal - the fed or the state?

[skeeter]

Roger that. The response time of the haters is near-instantaneous on any post mentioning Catholicism.

Near instantaneous and typically flinging charges of 'intolerant bigot' or somesuch, totally oblivious to the irony.

[Proud Legions]

Hmmm,

You can disagree with Dobson, and the 10 Commandments issue. But I am puzzled why you would say he has "wormed his way onto the news for years." He is the founder and head of a very large organization that carries a pretty good political punch, regardless of whether you like the organization or not (Focus on the Family). Much larger than Barry Lynn's Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, and if I am not mistaken, about 6 times the size of NOW at NOW's peak. He clearly is a leader of the Conservative Christian side, and of the Social Conservative side. His being on the news occassionally is understandable, especially if he is making news.

Also, maybe it should be there, or maybe not. But why would you suggest that it would keep someone who did not like it there from getting a fair hearing in the building? None of the judges ask people in the Court if they saw the monument when they came in, if they liked it, and what religion they were...so why would you think they would get unequal treatment because of a stone outside the courtroom?

[My2Cents]

Covetousness is the basis of capitalism? Maybe in a perverse society. I thought providing a product or service that appealed to people's self-interest (in a good sense) and overall good were the basis of capitalism.

[shaggy eel]

,,, Dr. Dobson, I strongly suspect your place in Heaven is assured.

[DonQ]

Get real. Do you really think that anyone who saw that monument for one moment thought about converting to either Judaism or Christianity?

Not about converting, just whether the judges (or even one of the judges) would treat them fairly even if their religion did not use Judge Moore's version of the Ten Commandments.

One fact which has been overlooked is that the Ten Commandments differ, in numbering and sequence, between Christians and Jews, between Catholics and Protestants, and even between various Protestant denominations. So Judge Moore's monument differs from most of the religions that revere the Ten Commandments because it perpetuates the order and numbering adhered to by only some religions.

[pollywog]

There has been a breakdown in the moral fabric of our society – a breakdown in our culture. The U.S. Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. When morality disintegrates, the value of the Constitution ceases to have meaning.

Well said Ginosko !!!

[MattAMiller]

So having the government promote your religious beliefs is a right now?

[Proud Legions]

Chancellor,

I have followed your posts for quite a while, and although you are just a youngster, it seems to me you are an intelligent sort.

Which makes me wonder when you make comments like you did about Dobson. Without knowing much about the man, you insinuated he was gleefully watching from the sidelines as MLK and others were firehosed during the Civil Rights movement.

As you have always been quick to ask in the past...where is the evidence of that?

You are better/smarter than that...argue the issues rather than make unsubstantialed insults of the man just because you don't agree with him. If you check his history you will find he has done a lot for folks of all races, nationaliies, and even creeds; has spent a lot of time helping kids; donated goods and services to the downtrodded (Christian and non-Christian alike); and always been a vocal supporter of civil rights for all. That doesn't mean he is right in every case, so argue against some of his positions if you want. But personnel attacks on his charactor won't win many over to your side on this issue...especially if those attacks are obviously so far off base.

[gdani]

Covetousness is the basis of capitalism? Maybe in a perverse society. I thought providing a product or service that appealed to people's self-interest (in a good sense) and overall good were the basis of capitalism.

Don't get out much? Our economy survives because everyone thinks they have to have what their neighbors have. That's fine with me -- I have my own business.

[GrandEagle]

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
Interesting lack of understanding to call Judge Moore's cause a circus sideshow. But you are entitled to your opinion.
There is far more to this than just the display of the 10 Commandments. At issue here is the rule of law - in this case, the Constitution. The Constitution specifically forbids the Federal government from having any say what so ever of an establishment issue. That authority is reserved specifically to the states. A very brief review of history will reveal that many of the states had state established religions well into the mid 1800’s. These states were governed in many cases by the very people who wrote our Constitution. It would be very difficult to argue that they didn’t understand it since they wrote it. There is an argument that the 14th amendment makes the entire Constitution apply to the state legislatures. I disagree but for sake of argument, let’s say it did. Then the State legislatures would also be expressly forbidden to even speak on the subject and the people would retain the authority. The question at stake here is can a federal judge simply declare, without any legal authority, that something must or must not be done and have his illegal ruling have the effect of law. If so then we fought the Revolutionary war for no reason. That was pretty much the state of affairs while we were a colony.

[My2Cents]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think Adam Smith couched his explanation of capitalism on the basis of "covetousness." That's more of a Marxist analysis. No doubt you're right, but as I suggested earlier, only in a perverse society would "covetousness" be considered a virtue.

[Wallace T.]

As the article points out, even President John Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, both liberal icons, warned King to dissociate himself from the Communists. King did this publicly, yet privately retained connections with known Communists like O'Dell and Aptheker. His anti-Vietnam War speeches in the mid-1960s were farther to the pro-Communist side than even mainstream liberal politicians were making at the time. King also was silent toward the atrocities of the Communists, both by the Viet Cong and their Soviet and Chinese allies.

As for blacks loving America prior to 1960, African Americans served in the military and shed much blood in both World Wars and in Korea. There was no massive anti-draft resistance, as there was during the Civil War among Irish-Americans and Southern sympathizers in the Northern states. Were the blacks of pre-1960 America as alienated as you say, it is hard to believe they would volunteer for the armed forces as they did, and submit to conscription. Remember that America suffered a civil war that resulted in black emancipation. Despite the oppression of blacks, they could and did own property, both real and personal, worship as they pleased, possess firearms, operate businesses and schools, publish newspapers, etc. Their level of freedom, even in the Jim Crow era, far exceeded that of the subjects of Communist or Muslim nations. Ironically, black radicals have looked to either the Marxist model or the Muslim model as the ideal social order.

As for oppression, there were both the "Jim Crow" laws, which restricted voting rights and segregated public schools, and social custom, which frowned upon social contact between the black and white races. Northern states, which generally did not have "Jim Crow" laws, enforced the "color line" by custom rather than fiat. Thus, a black man in Chicago was as likely to live in a segregated environment as a black man in Atlanta. There were numerous disabilities imposed on African-Americans on either side of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. Many of them had nothing to do with unfair laws, but with prejudiced men.

Let us not forget that the blacks were not the only group that suffered unfairly in American history. Quakers, Baptists, Mormons, American Indians, Irish Catholics, Italians, Jews, Germans, Chinese, Filipinos, Mexicans, and Japanese have at times suffered from unjust laws or unfair and prejudiced men.

Martin Luther King helped to steer a long suffering African American community against state government oppression in the South and the border states. But in so doing, he steered that community to the left and alienated it from the self-help ethic that had characterized earlier black leaders like George Washington Carver and Booker Washington. African-Americans became massively addicted to the welfare state, and its destructive effects on family and initiative. Black Americans lead the nation in most indices of social degeneracy, such as crime, drug addiction, divorce, illegitimate births, etc. Even a liberal Democrat like the late Daniel Moynihan was aware of this fact. The civil rights movement he led resulted in the expansion of Federal authority into areas of private contract, such as employment and housing, that alienated the rights of property and free association. Numerous of the best and brightest African-Americans are led astray into the paths of Marxian-Gramscian thought or radical Islam in 2003, even though the old-line white supremacist Southern politicians are dead.

Dr. King's legacy to this nation is the degeneracy of one-eighth of the American population into government dependence and the massive expansion of Federal power over the states and the people, in stark contrast to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

[Proud Legions]

The Code of Hammurabi is up in the Supreme Court, as are the 10 Commandments. Both have some claim to being part of the backdrop for the legal systems that eventually gave rise to our legal system...though arguably the Judea-Christian side has had much more influence IMHO. Though some claim that Hammurabi's Code was later "plagarized" by the Hebrews (still argued about by historians and others, but makes a great debate), either way the 10 Commandments can be shown to have a more direct line to our history and culture. Rgardless, both are appropriate to display because they do have a historical significance (a position expressed by the Supreme Court by the way).

Can't say I have ever seen where Buddhist or Hindu legal history had much an an influence on our legal system. That is why/how I would draw a distinction.

Assuming you were asking that as a serious question...

[Proud Legions]

May or may not be true. BUT the key here is you would have to go into the courtroom and tell the judge you didn't agree with the 10 Commandments...or how else would he know. And all this is assuming (giving your argument the benefit of the doubt here) that the Judge would treat you differently if you did not hold the same religious views as he did.

By the way, I used to live near Stone Mountain, GA. Is that where you took the name?

[tame]

Perhaps YOU too speak for God

I just spoke about what Jesus said. Your problem is better directed to him.

[tame]

Thanks for the MLK post.