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.

[Stone Mountain]

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.

Sure. My point was that I was replying to the statement, "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." There are many people who don't believe in one or more of the Ten Commandments and I don't think they are more likely to be guilty of crimes more than anyone else. I was also pointing out that I myself don't even necessarily agree with all of the commandments, and I don't think this makes me any more likely to be guilty than anyone else. It was more a question of My2Cents' preconceptions than a question about a real judge who might treat me differently.

[Proud Legions]

Interesting thesis, and argued about in depth for the past 200 years (beginning soon after Adam Smith et al). But most theologians and scholors (but admittedly not all) do not agree with you....sorry.

Doesn't mean you are wrong.

But if you want to keep pushing the controversial position that capitalism is against the 10th Commandment, you probably ought to take some time to do some web searches, etc and read some of the educated arguments from both sides (not just our rantings here, but from folks who have really thought and studied this one). At least that way you would be arguing from an educated position.

Not meaning to be insulting at all, nor talking down to you. It is just you keep saying it should be obvious to all the rest of us watching you guys argue this point. If it has not been obvious to some of the best minds on both sides of the argument for 200 years, it probably shouldn't be obvious to us either.

Just my old college professor days showing through...I didn't care what my students argued, as long as they were well-thought out and substantiated.

[smith288]

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?

Well, one could say it is murder as it is ending a person's life. But i am beginning to think you are more passionate about ending your or someone elses life than free expression of religious symbols.

[Proud Legions]

Ok. My2cents may have overstated his case on this one. I agree with you if you are saying just because you are not a Christian, or just because you do not believe in the 10 Commandments, does not mean you would break the law. Truth is, all kinds of folks obey laws for many different reasons. Some just don't want to pay a penalty if caught, some are too timid, some because they think society will not operate as smoothly if folks disobey the law, some because it might bring shame on their family (many Asian cultures with a background of Ancestrial Worship for example), and yes, many of us because we believe we should try not to sin (avoiding guilt that comes from disobeying a higher authority such as a Christian God).

Having said all that...I do think there is an attempt by Bary Lynn et al to purge all traces of the Judea-Christian belief from the American scene...which is actually quite sad. Deep down I'll bet you would admit that this momument, whether it should be there or not, really is not a threat to your chances of getting a fair trial. There may still be a legitimate argument to have it removed, but it does get old to hear all these folks on TV and elsewhere claim that if it is there, they cannot possible expect to get a fair trial. I have spent many years living in other countries (in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia), with many different belief systems, all of which were much more in your face with their religion than we our with our Judea-Christian symbols, and it didn't bother me. They all still treated me just fine...and fairly.

[gogeo]

Where was the good doctor in the 60s, anyway? Was he marching with the civil rights protestors, or was he hooting and hollering in glee on the sidewalk as Bull Connor turned dogs and firehoses on peaceful marchers? In fact, I noticed a few decrepit oldsters in that sobbing crowd gathered round Roy's Rock. What were they doing when their governments were denying voting rights and the right to even try and participate in local economies to blacks? Dobson can try and invoke MLK, but that dog won't hunt, and Dobson isn't a fouth of the man MLK was.

It's obvious your ignorance knows no bounds. You are obviously not one-quarter the man Dr. Dobson is.

[atlaw]

"For religious folk with a Judeo-Christian heritage, we are now being suppressed & told to closetize our representation in the public square."

The notion that Christians are singled out for oppression in this country is downright laughable, yet it seems to be a persistent theme. I suppose it derives from our heritage - Christ was the ultimate innocent victim after all, and Christians in fact suffered persecution at the hands of the Romans and assorted others throughout history. We simply have to be victims to be legitimate Christians, so we'll go to any lengths to pretend that we are. Kind of odd, really, and maybe something worth re-considering.

[gogeo]

You are prepared to call over 1 billion people of the world uncivilized?

At least...

[freeeee]

< sigh >

I have expressed no opinion about assisted suicide.

You stated that the feds violated states rights by interfering in the Commandments case. I agreed. To find out if you genuinely advocate states rights, or merely cite them when it suits your purpose I asked whether or not you think assisted suicide is a state or federal concern.

But you can't or won't answer that question. Why is that? It's not a complicated question.

Once again: Is the legality of assisted suicide to be decided by the states or by the fed?

[smith288]

Once again: Is the legality of assisted suicide to be decided by the states or by the fed?

Thats easy. But Ill answer your question after you answer my originally posed question. Its not hard....I know the answer. I just want to make sure you do too. Im not looking for your feelings regarding different levels of govts displaying objects like the 10 commandments.

Ill ask YOU once more... What law or, ahem, administrative decision was made that is preventing people in Alabama from practicing their religion or forcing people in Alabama to fund, attend and/or practice a particular religion? Im waiting...

[Binghamton_native]

Bill O'Reilly gave an excellent presentation yesterday on his show. Here is his Talking Points memo from the 8/27/03 show:

What is really behind the Ten Commandments controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

[Colofornian]

The notion that Christians are singled out for oppression in this country is downright laughable, yet it seems to be a persistent theme.

Sometimes it's Christians themselves who are singled out; just as often it's the Christian message or Christian religious symbology being suppressed in the public square.

Examples of the Christian message:

(a) I don't see cities rushing to implement a separation of church & state when it comes to other religious expression. For example, the city of San Jose decided to erect a statue to the ancient Aztec god Quetzelcoatl in a downtown park.

(b) I'm not sure if this practice is current, but for the longest of time the New York Times would exclude any books sold under Christian bookseller umbrellas from its bestseller lists.

(c) Public school students have routinely been taken to Native American field trips that include intros to their religious practices...including participating in religious raindances...Scientology books were handed out in some Texas schools in the 90s...the Muslim faith & Koran were studied in CA public school 2 years ago...all examples that if the same thing intro was done by Christians, the left's alarmists would have a cow.

(d) A U.S. West woman in Omaha about a decade ago was barred from the jobsite for wearing her Operation Rescue t-shirt & a pro-life button while at work. Her co-workers would routinely wear t-shirts w/messages, but her message was singled out for exclusion.

Christians themselves: (a) More peaceful Christian pro-lifers were arrested in front of abortion clinics up thru 1994 than were folks in the entire Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. Were they treated disparitely? Yes. While AIDS activists would interrupt services @ Catholic masses in NY...or environmental & peace activists would trespass & interrupt logging efforts (or sit in front of nuclear power plants or missile test site operations)...they would get mere minor fines while the peaceful pro-life activists were often being handed multiple months or even years of jail time...

(b) How often have you seen peaceful protest groups on the left have nunchukus (a martial arts weapon) used on them? Yet hundreds of peaceful pro-life protesters were subjected to this in 1990 in LA & LaMesa, CA...martial arts weapons being twisted & applied to legs & arms resulting in nerve damage & examples where one man had his arm broken above the elbow...it just snapped in two & it sounded like a cannon going off (June 1990, LA).

I can go on, but I s'pose you think Christians having their arms snapped in two is in your words "laughable."

[Colofornian]

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

So having the government suppress, censor & shut down every religious sentiment, expression, etc. is an automatic knee-jerk constitutional amendment, fed statute, Supreme Court decision all rolled up in one?

[Robert_Paulson2]

The "TRUE" Christians consider it "persecution" whenever they don't get to call the shots, condemn the sinners, direct the agenda, are not acknowledged as the "moral superiors" by government and whenever they are blocked from punishing the evil doers according their individual sectarian beliefs... and when they are unable to find things to "lord it over" and "punish" the "less holy than they" what do they do?

Why here comes both hell and highwater! They persecute, kill, ostracize, condemn and bicker over snippets of sectarian dogma with each other... and they do it to the DEATH. Historically speaking.

[Constantine XIII]

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments"

Guess who said that? ;oP

[sport]

I hope tat it is a movement.

[Agamemnon]

No I can't.

I didn't think you could.

But not all 10 commandments apply.

But that's not the point. You attempted to equate Hinduism, Bhuddism and the Code of Hamurabi to the code(s) which historically informed US law and its practice. You failed.

If you doubt the root origins of US law look to English Law not Indian, to the Mayflower Compact, not the to the Far East, to "the Reformation," not "the Enlightenment."

Having one God and not using his name in vain are not the basis of US law.

Actually, quite a number of early Ameerican civil codes prosecuted just for that act. Elected servants in many colonies and in the early Constitutional era were required to profess a Christian faith, and have a comportment which exhibited moral Christian behavior. For Christian's that includes all the 10 commandments.

I found this on Hammurabi's code in the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Which you quote at the end, "...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."

Not exactly the Code of Hammurabi, is it?

[atlaw]

Loads of legends there. Strange how the examples of egregious persecution and the tales of indoctrination of children in non-Cristian religions never seem to have any citation or direct evidence.

As a practical matter, profession of Christian faith is a pre-requisite to public office (even Clinton claimed to be Christian, for crying out loud), and there is certainly no shortage of Churches, street preachers, Christian bookstores, Christian television, Christian radio, Christian web sites, and Christian protesters at the cause de jure.

Indeed, Churches are distinctly protected properties in my part of the country, subject to unique and beneficial zoning rights not afforded any other structure, and while not unique to Christianity, religion in general is afforded some remarkable benefits under our tax laws. You'll have to do better than a collection of urban legends to convince me that Christians cannot speak, preach, and otherwise air their beliefs with utter freedom.

The sole bone of contention is imposition of Christian symbolism in government buildings and functions, which has been trumpeted as persecution with little or no consideration of the ramifications.

It disturbs me that victimology seems to be consuming Christianity. This is a decidedly liberal device, and from the level of sheer whining I see in the posts here, it makes me think that a great many otherwise dedicated conservatives have bought into the phony lament as a means of either grandstanding or perhaps avoiding the hard work of legitimate evangalism. I just think its high time the whole approach was given a second look.

[atlaw]

I think that's overstating it. Christians on the whole feel called to profess and witness. This is part and parcel of our belief. It is, as a matter of fact, our duty to our fellow man. But what is disturbing to me is the contemporary indulgence in victimology. The whining, wailing, and crys of persecution over something as foolish as a monument in a courthouse is not only childish and decidedly liberal in its tenor, it is a betrayal of our faith. We only drive people away with such transparently false claims of persecution.

[sweet_diane]

why not? wouldn't bother me as long as it 'fit' with the building regulations.

[Dubya]

Maybe, just maybe this will be to Christians what 911 was to Americans.
I hope so.