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

FoxNews

[Ginosko]

"Which "rule of law" are you referring to?

The U.S. Constitution

""Seperation of Church and state" may not be directly expressed in the Constitution, but it is a fortuitous interpretation that I find welcome and preferable to the alternative."

Your fortuitous interpretation represents an abandonment of the rule of law and endangers the civil rights of our people.

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment to it … the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship," Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court

[Proud Legions]

Interesting premise....

The only way to be considered great is if you risk personal health or safety? That is really not how you define greatness, is it? I know you can do better than that.

Seems that would cut out many of the folks we historically have claimed to be great...including almost every great statesman after our founding fathers. And it would include many folks we would not think were great (Hitler himself risked personnel health, safety and material comfort for many years in order to come to power...but that is not exactly the defination of great I would want to use). Jesse Jackson is thus great, Stalin makes the cut, as does Castro.

Maybe someone is great if they go to great lengths to improve the lot of their fellow man, especially if they succeed. I am sure you can improve upon my first cut of great, but you get the point.

In this defination, I think in many ways both Dobson and MLK make the cut, though all could argue to different degrees. How you add or subtract for a man's personal sins is another matter (i.e the old "can a man be great if he helps many others yets beats his wife and kids or has many extramarital affairs?" argument).

A bit confused why you hate Dobson so much. You don't have to agree with him about this momument, but whether you like all his opinions or not even you should recognize he has done many good things for literally tens of thousand of the poor, the downtrodden or those in dispair.

And I have seen no evidence of him wanting to enact any laws imposing a strict morality in which he would be a power broker. Good grief, the man is in his 70's and retired if I am not mistaken.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with him in this case.

[Proud Legions]

I was writing my reply (#302) when you posted this. I guess great minds think alike!

You have hit the nail on the head. Risking personnal health, safety, and personal comfort is admirable, but clearly not the defination of a "great" man.

I could addd two others to CPs defination of great...Bin laden and Saddam Hussen. In fact, every terrorist makes the cut!

[Stone Mountain]

Yes, I do consider you do be at variance, but that's not to say that I'm never at variance with them. What is Sabbath, is it Sunday? Or what ever day you set aside as "holy?" Just believing in the Ten Commandments does not make one "prejudiced."

No, but notice that I was replying to this statement when I made that post: "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." As far as I am concerned, that is a prejudiced statement. I cetainly don't think that all believers in all 10 commandments are prejudiced, but I believe that particular believer is.

[Happy2BMe]

"The desperate cry of an endangered species."

Evolution is but a theory - never proven by scientific fact.

Would you prefer a statue devoted to Darwin? Stalin? Lenin?

[Happy2BMe]

"This profound desire to inject religion into government, however, has an inevitable and reciprocal conseqence - government meddling in religion."

May I please ask you again . . What written law has Judge Moore violated?

[PleaseNoMore]

Are you the one who said that Roy Moore wouldn't put am MLK plaque in the rotunda? Is looksie here at the court opinion. If not then maybe the one who said it will see it.

"At the time of its installation, the monument was intended to be the only object decorating the Judicial Building rotunda. Almost two months later, though, the Chief Justice added two more displays to the rotunda. The first, added in late September, is a marble plaque with quotations from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking of just and unjust laws, and Frederick Douglass, speaking of the injustice of slavery, entitled "Moral Foundation of Law." The Chief Justice commissioned this plaque himself. The moral foundation of law plaque is forty-two inches by thirty-two inches and is located on a wall seventy-five feet away from the monument. The Chief Justice installed this plaque because the contributions of these men "have been significant and their reliance upon the laws of God to secure freedom and liberty should be recognized and would support the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument." The full text of this plaque is attached as Appendix D to this opinion."

"Added in early October, the second display is a brass plaque with the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. This plaque was discovered in a box in the Judicial Building shortly before it was put on another wall in the rotunda. It, too, is located on the wall, seventy-five feet from the monument; this plaque is thirty inches by thirty-six inches. The Chief Justice testified that this plaque was placed in the rotunda because it also comported with the "moral foundation of law" theme."

Now I know that you are the one who is ranting and raving about Moore's alleged connection with Coral Ridge Ministries. Again, from the court opinion:

"Admittedly, the Chief Justice denies an active relationship between himself and Coral Ridge. He contends that he has not been involved in the ministry's efforts, through the use of his name and the publicity surrounding the monument, to raise funds for his legal defense in conjunction with efforts to raise funds for its religious projects."

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The MLK plaque commentator wasn't me, nor do I know who it was. As for the Coral Ridge thing, I'm curious as to how they came to be there to film it, and what is happening to those legal defense fund checks if his testimony is to be believed.

[Happy2BMe]

Excellent - please, more!

Judge Roy Moore and The Ten Commandments Monument - A Timeline (ACLU Prompted Removal)

Rights of States Built into the Constitution

[GrandEagle]

Here is a portion of an e-mail news letter I get daily from The Federalist.com.
Pretty much sums it up to me..
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's defiance of a federal court's mandate to remove a Ten Commandments display from the rotunda at the Alabama judicial building has been debated vigorously in recent weeks, mostly out of context. Much of the public debate about this case has taken a wide detour around the substantive constitutional question, instead focusing on the Ten Commandments: Are they the foundation of Western law? Should they be displayed in state and local public places? Are such displays promotions of religion or history? While these are interesting questions, they are not relevant to the substance of this case. Those content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or they harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid the relevant. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, has framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his gaggle of street preachers, thus depreciating its legal significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution. As The Federalist reported weeks ago, the federal judges, ACLU plaintiffs and Justice Moore all agree that the issue is not the Ten Commandments but the First and, thus, Tenth Amendments, and how these are to be interpreted. U.S. 11th Circuit Court Appellate Judge Ed Carnes, in his denial of Justice Moore's appeal, wrote, "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years." The ACLU's counsel stated, "This case is not about the Ten Commandments. This case is not about Roy Moore. It is about the First Amendment...." Indeed, Justice Moore wrote, "Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights? It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states...." Notwithstanding the fact that the federal courts, the plaintiffs and defendant all declared this case to be about our Constitution, few media pundits and commentators dared venture into its real substance -- much too cerebral, fear they, for the dumbed-down masses who can't distinguish between the First and Tenth Amendment and first-and-ten to go. But in doing so, they are selling out our Founders' courageous legacy, as well as those Patriots who keep the torch burning today. Indeed, the substance of this case solely concerns the rule of law as plainly written by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution, the protection of which is entrusted to the federal judiciary, whom it authorizes by oath to defend it, and its Bill of Rights, as adopted by the several states (including Alabama). The core question raised by this case is whether our Constitution should be altered by amendment (as per original intent), or adulterated by adjudication, which our Founders (as explicated in the Federalist Papers) and the states clearly rejected. The Constitution clearly states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." (Article I, Section 1). Conspicuously absent here is any language that allows federal judicial activists to render interpretive rulings that distort the Constitution such that it comports with their political and social agendas. On the subject of judicial activists, the Constitution declares, "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" (Article III, Section 1). In other words, they should be impeached. Unfortunately, as Thomas Jefferson noted, impeachment is "a scarecrow," a straw man. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...," and the Tenth Amendment ensures "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In the Federalist Papers, the definitive exposition of the Constitution's original intent, James Madison wrote, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Madison, our Constitution's author, meant that the Constitution is to be read and ruled upon constructively, not as a matter of interpretive opinion, which circumvents its prescribed method of amendment. Those are the terms under which the states, including Alabama, ratified the Constitution. As for the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment's "Privileges or Immunities" clause applies the Bill of Rights' restrictions on the central government to all levels of government -- it didn't and it doesn't. That notion was settled by the Supreme Court long ago, though the Fourteenth continues to be dredged up by judicial activists -- the same ones who interpret the First Amendment to read "separation of church and state" -- in an effort to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. It only applies in this case -- in the correct application of the amendment -- in support of Justice Moore's position, in that it bars the state of Alabama, and Moore as its chief judicial officer, from acting on the order handed down from the federal court. Justice Moore, in his defiance of the federal courts, wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, federal courts have absolutely no power, authority or jurisdiction [in this case]." He is, correctly in our opinion, arguing that he cannot be in disobedience of a judicial order where there is no jurisdiction. Thus, his actions do not rise even to the level of civil disobedience -- just defiance of an unlawful ruling. Of course, this distinction is predicated on respect for the rule of law under our Constitution, not the rule of judges, or what Thomas Jefferson characterized as "the Despotic branch." Justice Moore is currently suspended for his defiance and faces ethics charges before the seven-member Court of the Judiciary. On Tuesday, the Ten Commandments display was removed from the judicial rotunda in Montgomery, to the shrieks of a few eccentric street preachers whose tirade (replayed repeatedly by Leftmedia outlets) served only to discredit the thoughtful objections of millions of Christian Patriots across the nation and further obfuscate the constitutional case being made by Justice Moore. In neighboring Mississippi, Gov. Ron Musgrove (D) called on governors around the nation to put the monument on display in their state capitol buildings -- starting with his. So what's next? A new appeal to the Supreme Court is in the works, while Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, Attorney General Bill Pryor and the eight Associate Justices are busy trying to convince the people of Alabama that they support the Ten Commandments but were bound to obey the rule of law. "Because we are a society of laws, the Alabama Supreme Court has a duty to comply with the federal court order, whether they agree with it or not," said Riley. Indeed, they do -- unless the order is unlawful. Riley did not say how far from the "rule of law" they are willing to let judicial activists stray before adhering to Alabama's state motto, "We Dare Defend our Rights." Perhaps that will be best left to Governor Roy Moore....

[GrandEagle]

A bit long. Probably should have been it's own post. Sorry; I'm just learning "the ropes".

[PleaseNoMore]

Perhaps the ministry has taken it upon itself to support Roy Moore. The court went on in the opinion by saying that it recognized that Roy Moore's monument was being used by CRM to accept funds. That does not in any way mean that Roy Moore asked them to or that he has an active relationship with the organization. Yes, Moore did grant CRM interviews while running for his position. Does that in itself establish an active relationship? I cannot see how you tie the two together. The evidence you have is loose, at best.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

CRM supplied $170,000.00 to him for his legal defense fund during his first 10 Commandments fight in 1998, according to their own site. He grants interviews on installation, allows them to film it, and they're collecting money for him again - which he never publicly disavows or asks them to stop.

[Denver Ditdat]

Plus I didn't think another thread full of christians squabbling among themselves would've been very useful.

I agree 100%. There is nothing the anti-Christians like better than to see dissention among the faithful, and I believe they waste no opportunity to encourage it. Energy spent fighting among ourselves is better directed at the real enemy.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"This is the final straw."

---

talibornagain hogwash.

[My2Cents]

Jesus said that, if we loved Him, we would keep His commandments.

True, Jesus said that. My question to you is, how are you doing? Kept them all? Even the one where Jesus said that if you call a person an "empty head" you're guilty of murder? But Jesus also said that the two greatest commandments, the two that are the sum the entire Law of Moses, are "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Remember what Jesus told the rich young man who asked what he needed to do to get into heaven? Jesus essentially said "keep the Law." The young man said he had (no doubt a self-righteous attitude). Then Jesus tightened the screws: "Well, then, go out, sell all you have, and give it to the poor." The young man lowered his head in discouragement, and walked away. Jesus said to his disciples that "it is easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven." The disciples were astonished because they realized that by that standard, no one would make it into heaven. Jesus then said (and I think this was the key to the entire exchange), "With man it is impossible; but with God all things are possible." I believe his exchange with the rich young man was intended to show him that it was impossible to keep the Law, impossible to justify himself by the sincerity of his own efforts, that he needed the grace of God found by faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ -- that was the way into heaven!

Paul wrote that the Law is a tutor which teaches us the futility of our efforts at self-righteous, a teacher that leads us to Christ, to His grace, and to the free gift of salvation by faith. We cannot get into heaven but through the grace of God appropriated by faith in Christ; and Colossians 2:6 says that we cannot LIVE as God intends for us to live without reliance upon the grace of God appropriated by faith in Christ.

The Law is good, and reflects the character of God. But it isn't the way we find justification before God.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"Think about it as you listen to people, we have put ourselves into the position of choosing what we want in a religion."

---

yeah... I know it drives you nuts, but it's called freedom of religion.
we can choose what we want to believe here in the us... and your idiot friends aren't allowed to ram THEIR version of commandments down our throats via the power of the state.
frustrating to you religionists isn't it!
had enough?
is this the final straw? Good, go sell your 'talibornagain' extremism somewhere else.
What you gonna do about it?
Pass a law? Good luck on your new "quest" to make America fit your definition of a "Christian" nation.

[Happy2BMe]

"The Law is good, and reflects the character of God. But it isn't the way we find justification before God."

Question: Were early Christians living in Rome breaking the law by meeting secretly in the catacombs?

Were those fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England breaking the law by refusing to bow down it?

If so, were they disobedient to God?

[Robert_Paulson2]

"C.P., you are not fighting.. me.... You are fighting God."

---

roflmao....
"if you don't agree with letting me do what MY GROUP OF NUTS wants to do in the Alabama Courthouse YOU are fighting GOD."

Do you have ANY idea how pathetic you sound?
"forbear threatening" Christian and "obey the civil authorities" are God's command too. You are over reaching... and desperate.

[Happy2BMe]

Huh?