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.

[PleaseNoMore]

Thank you. I am sure we have ALL transgressed all of them, even the one that says thou shalt not murder. If only in our hearts, we have more than likely transgressed that one many times over.

[ClancyJ]

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I read through these posts very fast and I lose track of who is for or against a point of view. Then something triggers a thought and my fingers start flying resulting in a few misunderstood replies.

I should go slower and check exactly what that person has said - but it is so much more fun to just go with the flow.

[viaveritasvita]

RobPaul: Couple of things...

I've moved from "assumption" to "sound judgment." (1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God....") I seriously question your claim to Christianity, but let's say that it's in truth and in spirit: In that case, I just think we are in different places along the narrow path.

We differ completely about the roots of this nation. For example (and this is HUGE in my book), in your post 362 you stated "...in the opinion of every judge of the law in the USA...." AS IIIIIIF!!! As if I care one whit about the opinion -- and opinion is exactly the correct word -- of 95% of the leftie judges who've been foist upon us!!!!!!! It was one of the most telling statements you made.

We differ deeply about some important (altho maybe not essential) theological matters. God ordained government. To separate Him from something He created is...is...well, it's...completely STOOOOPID to say the least!! May God forgive this nation for wrongly separating Him from so much in our lives, including government.

Finally, FYI, I've placed you on my virtual ignore list as it's become tiresome, contentious and plain old ugly to "converse" with you. Others will have to (and indeed they have -- see PleaseNoMore's exellent posts 369, 376, and 380) pick up the discussion where you and I leave off. And I could not care less what you think about that.

May God bless you in your Christian journey. Buh-bye.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

---

sounds like an approval of breaking the laws of the land... in lieu of what someone vainly "imagines" God has either commanded or permitted them to do.

folks could make up "God told me so's" for all kinds of law breaking... and have. I think it is dangerous to do anything that gives aid and comfort to those who will use religous pretexts for breaking laws, executing violence and to encourage it in others... as has been done by some alleged "Christians" in reference to abortion clinic bombers and the like.

Some folks have quoted the "stoning" passages of the bible, for those of the homosexual bent. "Hey it's God's command, we should obey HIM rather than man. After all God commanded." JimRob and the mods have been faithful to pull those posts, but I HAVE seen it.

Would any reasonable freeper advocate killing adulterors... because after all "God hath commanded," it?

the islalmakazis have done this... and used obedience to their God, to kill innocents in the name of their religion. Christians have done it too... we need to obey... and not advocate "disobedience" in the name of God... unless God has commanded it in deed.

Building this statue and placing it was NOT a command of God in Scripture. No christian sect has such a command. And moving it does not violate a command of God either.

---

I said: In the public arena I think we need to keep from forcing our faith on others who don't want it.

You said:Well, again, I disagree.... and then went on to explain your "Ok to use force" thing.

that sort of says it all... I am appalled that you believe "forcing" faith on the unbelievers is okay... I believe coercion of any kind in matters of faith are wrong... and moreso in governments.

I think folks who believe as you just stated... are very dangerous. you advocate disobedience in the name of God in issues where he has given NO such command, and would clearly advocate the use of governmental force or coercion to compel unbelievers to acknowlege Christ using the power or position of the state.

You can preach on the street corner all you want... but nowhere in scripture are you commanded to build statues and put them in state buildings, to save folks from hell.

Sharing Christ is NOT brought about by imitating Charlamagne and marching folks through the river to baptise them as Christians. Nor is it accomplished by marching them in front of some judge's statue.

You have implied that we ought to be doing this statue thing in disobedience to the law of the land, in obedience to a command God has never given, for the sake of spreading the Gospel of JesusChrist?

We need to stop praying about the statue, and begin praying for folks reasoning ability... moore and his marble are NOT the Savior nor are they the gospel..

the gospel is recorded in Scripture.. and recorded in most Christian Creeds... none of them incorporate the building of statues with the commandments on them... but are usually involved with "Christ was crucified and died for our sins and buried for our sins, according to the scripture and on the third day He did rise up alive forever" or similar... with no mention of a a command to build statues, or go into all the world and preach about statue installations.. or anything like it.

Preach the gospel. Fine. I will even support you financially... but please don't use the Gospel as a pretext to violate laws that do NOT contradict the commands or prohibitions of Scripture in Christ's name...

Bottom line: disobedience to man in a false obedience to God, results in violence... after all, GOD told me to (fill in the blank), somewhere in the Bible.

[sakic]

Not at all. The foundation of this country was not based upon the tenents of Islam. If anyone would read the text of Moore's dedication speech they would understand that he placed the commandments monument there as a SYMBOL of the nation's Christian heritage.

Fine. But many here and elsewhere claim this as an issue of religious freedom. At least you don't claim that. I still disagree with you but at least your arguments are consistent with each other.

[viaveritasvita]

Jim: In a private message to me and Luis, RobPaul said I pushed the "report abuse" button. Do you want to let him know that I sent you a normal post or shall I?

Luis: I can't tell from my screen if I forgot to include you in my post. I think it's obvious that I intended to. My apologies if I screwed up.

<><

[viaveritasvita]

Check out this article...

http://www.toogoodreports.com/column/general/baldwin/20030831-fss.htm

[Proud Legions]

Absolutely correct. Many groups under Rome's authority worshipped all kinds of non-Roman Gods. Remember, the Romans had captured/controlled most of the known civilized world (outside of Asia). Rome did not care, as long as they would come out to the public celebrations of the Roman Gods as well. The Christians refused to do so.

[Jorge]

If God has never used the medium of stone to convey His mind, His will, and His commandments, what were they written on then?

The hearts of men.
That is far more important to God than words written on a stone.

[harpo11]

The leftists are working at a furious pace to make normal what is not normal, and make abnormal what is normal.

They are aiming their lances into the very heart of Lady Liberty, who represents not only American Freedom but all that is essential to the moral order contained in the rule of law.

[Happy2BMe]

Deuteronomy 11
¹⁸ Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.

¹⁹ Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

²⁰ Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates,

²¹ so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

²² If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow-to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him-

²³ then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you.

²⁴ Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the western sea.

²⁵ No man will be able to stand against you. The LORD your God, as he promised you, will put the terror and fear of you on the whole land, wherever you go.

[Happy2BMe]

"Christians made a choice to worship the Lord. I'm not sure if his parallel holds up."

By God's grace, one day we may both be able to ask Rosa what difference skin color really makes in heaven.

[Proud Legions]

Good post.

I find this case interesting BECAUSE it hits on so many levels at one time:

Arguments about Church and State

State Rights vs Federal Control

Civil Disobedience--private citizens, public officials, judges!

Foundations of our legal system and of our Constitution

There is one more that few mention but I think is the most dangerous: judicial activism

Clearly this would not have been an unconstitutional act 200 years ago, or even 100. But it is today. Yet there have been no new laws enacted. I am not arguing here that the momument should be in the rotunda, or that it should not be. Just that the law somehow changed over the course of our history, yet there has been no new law.

Thus what has changed? Judges have begun to reinterpret the laws...or as Robert Bork and Anthony Scalia would say, rewriting the laws. While many on this thread think that is a good thing, and that it has happened many times to correct what obviously were flawed early legal decisions, Bork makes a great case that it is a road to tyranny.

Why? Because Justices are voted in for life, and do not have to answer to the people. If a current interpretation of a law is bad, then the people should force their legislature to change the law. To permit the judicary to fix injustices by reinterpreting the law is to give to unaccountable men complete, and possible tyranical, power.

I heard an interesting discussion involving Scalia one time. Someone asked him if his job was not one of being the final arbitrator, to ensure fairness and protect people's rights (just like many are arguing that the Federal Judge was right to have the momument moved because to leave it there would make some non-Christians feel like second class citizens..thus it would be unfair). He said no, that was the legislatures job; his job was not to fix injustices or to ensure fairness, but to ensure legislation passed Constitutional muster. He said if something is unfair, go to your legislature and tell then to fix it. To ask judges to do so requires the people to forfeit their right to self-governance and is antithetical to good representaive democracy. When he told this crowd that he would uphold bad laws if they were Constitutional, the crowd about fainted. But he was, and is, right.

Bottom line: These religious symbols were legal when our founding father's wrote the Constitution. At that time there were not Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims here. If it now makes many Americans uncomfortable to have these symbols around, pass a law saying that all religious symbols should be removed from public places. DO NOT rely on judges to say times have changed and America is now a more pluristic society, and thus I must reinterpret the law--a living Constitution--to address this injustice.

Call it tyranny of the majority if you want, but it is better than tyranny by the few, and our Founding Father's understood that well when they debated the Constitution (read the early writings and debates...this was about the most argued about point of the whole process of setting up our three branch government).

One man's opinion anyway.

Night!

[Happy2BMe]

"Rome did not care, as long as they would come out to the public celebrations of the Roman Gods as well. The Christians refused to do so."

And in so doing elevated their allegiance to an authority higher than that of Caesar's - to the Authority of Heaven.

[GrandEagle]

your post 354
I sure hate I missed this part of the discussion. You have a great way with word.

I'll be out of the fray here for about 10 days. Gone to Waterford New York.

[Happy2BMe]

"(I understand that he has violated a ruling to remove the Commandments.)"

And that ruling was nothing more than a liberal judge's interpretation of the separation of church and state - of which has no basis, no written rule, and no legitimacy in the Constitution of the United States.

The separation of church and state is a doctrine conjured up by liberal judges on the United States Supreme Court in their zeal to sanitize God from the face of America.

[tame]

May God richly bless you, my beloved!

May God pour out blessings on yor life!

[tame]

Rob, I have come to the conclusion that your invincible ignorance cannot be cured by any mere mortal. Therefore we petition the almighty himself to penetrate your heart and repent from your agitation against his precepts being displayed in public life.

[f.Christian]

PL ...

One man's opinion anyway.

Night!


fC ...

feining humility !

BTTT - BT !

[viaveritasvita]

You'll be missed. Traveling mercies!