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.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"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."<<


It's so obvious and so sickening!!!

[viaveritasvita]

May the Bright Morning Star shine upon you!

[viaveritasvita]

And, Father, we ask it in Jesus' precious name. Amen!

[tame]

Amen!

[viaveritasvita]

Thank you for posting Deut 11:18-25.

[PleaseNoMore]

sounds like an approval of breaking the laws of the land

RP, now you know that your assertion is simply not true. I quoted a scripture but, if you want to misconstrue it and quote me completely out of context, then by all means, do so. It is that VERY sort of thing that those of more liberal leanings do all the time to win their argument. It is the VERY reason we are having this discussion.

In your "private" devotions and more applicably, your studies, I am sure that you realize that any person who says to stone adulterers and homosexuals and who, at the same time, claim to be followers of Christ, either are 1). ignorant of the teachings of Christ or 2). acting upon their own misguided will and invoking God's name to justify their actions, agendas and willfull disobedience. Please, do NOT lump me into either category. I would also like to point out that the god ( little "g" ) of the "islamakazis" is NOT the God that I or any other Christian serve. While your point is valid I resent being compared to extremists, especially IGNORANT extremist for I am neither.

You either have a comprehension deficiency or you merely wish to be argumentative. I believe that, in your case, it is the latter. I never said to FORCE anything upon anyone. I simply stated that I did not believe that Christianity is a wholly private matter given the commission and all, you see. If you are appalled that someone takes seriously the charge to preach the gospel into all the world, then it seems that you have an issue that is better taken up with Jesus.

I in no way implied what you are saying. Now you are bearing false witness and blatantly so. If you desire to keep your faith private, then hey, more power to ya! I will not be content to live my faith in isolation and nowhere does the bible mandate that I do so.

RP, you cannot get beyond the tangible. The issue is NOT Roy's rock, as some of you have referred. It is MUCH LARGER than the monument.

[ClancyJ]

>>"Ronald Reagan once said these prophetic words: 'You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.'"<<

I agree. I don't remember ever hearing that before - I love Ronald Reagan.

[RightOnline]

Ohfercryinoutloud............get over yourself, would ya???

[RightOnline]

"It is hilarious to hear David Hackworth touted as the "most decorated soldier" ever, when he couldn't shine Audie Murphy's shoes."

Hackworth has never, ever been touted as "the most decorated soldier". He is often referred to as "the most decorated LIVING soldier". Try to keep up here, would ya?

Both Murphy and Hack are soldiers who did their country proud. Keep snide comments to yourself; maybe even lay your own battle record on the table.

[Robert_Paulson2]

If you are appalled that someone takes seriously the charge to preach the gospel into all the world

---

No I am not appalled at the gospel... just your allegation that defending this stone is somehow a fulfillment of the great commission... or any part of the Gospel of Christ. It's not.
I WANT you to preach the Gospel. I pay to encourage folks to do just that....
YOU JUST CAN'T do it from the pulpit of the courthouse rotunda, with a slab of stone containing the law of Moses. Period.

---

Secondarily if you can make "exceptions" for folks to avoid obeying man's laws in one case "I think God wants me to do this or that".. although YOU may not take it to extremes... others will... and have. See jerusalem bus bombing...

If you can see it's as "ok" for you to break the law in one "reasonable" case, I am sure an Islamikazi here in the states will see it as ok for him or her... whether YOU and I spell the name of THEIR god with "BIG G" or a "little g" or a capitol "S". The result is the same--religious extremists doing extreme things in the name of God or god...

I just don't think we should countenance law breaking in God's name... especially not because of a stone slab God never COMMANDED anyone in scripture to build or defend...

When God wants it carved in stone HE is fully capable of doing so, with His own fingers. Twice if necessary.

And after we have the commandments installed in over half the churches of the USA, instead of the pathetic 2 -3 percent... then we can talk about how much good it does to post and plant them elsewhere on public courthouse lawns.

I guess I was just raised to believe different. I always thought that people are saved by God's grace... NOT their commitment to a marble slab by an eccentric judge. And if the latter is Your idea of obeying the Gospel... you will have to sell it to someone else. To me, it's lawbreaking, plain and simple.

I don't believe in sola ecclesia, sola scriptura, or even sola tabla, it's sola christos... and judge moore is none of those, not even close.

Nice chatting with you though... we are plainly on very opposite ends of this stick.

[sruleoflaw]

Dr. Dobson has done more good for people in a single day than you will probably do in your lifetime. Lay off him...and quit the Christian-bashing.

[Robert_Paulson2]

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

---

Well, again, I disagree.

---

so what is it you disagree with... if it isn't the sentence you copied and pasted it after, from my post in your reply?

Do you think it is okay to force your faith on people who don't want to hear it or not...
at your home,
in the street,
in the public court house,
anywhere you want,
everywhere?

Where is it NOT okay to force your faith on unrepentant unwilling hearers...

Whatever happened to "whosoever wills"? eh?
You guys have turned it into forcing it on "whosoever won't" as well?

That's not Gospel.
Now if you mean share with the willing, or helping those who are wanting help... go for it. But the county courthouse is NOT our pulpit. We are not allowed to use it as our own sectarian springboard to proselyte or convert folks to our brand of religion.

You can win more folks with your personal testimony and some honest help with their very tangible problems, than you can with this crusade over what you think are "intangibles" that cretins like me just don't get...

HEY, I get it.
Symbols are everything to you folks.
That battle over the statue YOU THINK is a satanic struggle over america's soul.... but YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE COMMANDMENTS IN 97-98 PERCENT OF AMERICA'S CHURCH'S. The courthouse is clearly NOT the problem.

The suggestion here is common sense; START at your church with the statue thing. NOT my public courthouse. If you cannot control what's going on in God's alleged "house", what makes you think you are going to do anything outside it?

[ClancyJ]

My father, who obviously recognized how ill-informed and ridiculous I sounded, consistently told me to "read the Bible cover-to-cover and then we can talk." I didn't do that until after his death (I have a stubborn streak and was caught up in "philosophies that depend on human knowledge" and "false teaching") so he and I will have that talk in Heaven

That brings tears to my eyes. Wouldn't you have enjoyed the talks. I understand though - it is often hard to get through a whole book in an unfamiliar dialect.

I remember my grandmother and other older people who were such Bible lovers. Could not understand it then. Would always wonder why they were continually reading it.

[ClancyJ]

"No, but sometimes you've just got to let them rant."

Is there a time limit?

[PleaseNoMore]

It is clear from your pedantic ravings that you are NOT comprehending or even reading what I have written.

I am starting from the bottom up, ok?

YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE COMMANDMENTS IN 97-98 PERCENT OF AMERICA'S CHURCH'S.

I reiterate, they are posted in the church that I attend. I know of several other churches, mostly Baptist, that they are posted in as well.

As for getting God's house under control, I suspect He will do that, sooner than we think.

You speak of YOUR public courthouse?? Well are you aware of the fact that even the court agreed that the rotunda was not a public forum and that no one other than Roy Moore had any say whatsoever about what wes displayed in it?

Symbolism is very important. Now, God does not NEED a monument for people to know of Him nor is the monument in itself going to save people. I am sure that all rational people will agree. God also does not require that one be erected to show our faith. I believe that Moore did this out of personal conviction that the laws of this land were based in biblical history. Even the court, somewhat, agrees with that in the opening of its opinion.

I do not believe in beating people over the heads with bibles. I do believe in personal testimonies, being a living witness through deed etc. With that said, I also believe that I have the right to speak of my faith, to the willing and unwilling, in any private or public sector. That, in no way shape or form, implies that I believe in forcing my beliefs on others. As for what you refer to as the unwilling, surely you know the parable of the seed falling on stony ground and of the seed that falls on fertile ground. ONLY the Holy Spirit knows whose heart is stony and whose heart is fertile. I can only bear the message. I don't and never will be able to "save" someone. It is a choice each person makes for themselves. RP, I can attest to many people coming to the saving and life changing knowledge of Jesus Christ because someone witnessed to them in their "unwilling" state. The seed was planted. Is it wrong for me to tell someone who is living in sin, homosexuality for example, that their lifestyle is going to lead them to hell if they do not repent? According to you it is. That particularperson's "flesh" will not want to hear that thus making them unwilling, according to you. However, because someone did tell them that they may become convicted of their lifestyle and repent and turn from that sin.

In short, and this will be my final post to you unless you can stop arguing semantics, Roy Moore did nothing wrong. It ain't about the rock but about what the rock is symbolic of. First it was prayer in school. Then it was prayer at public functions and school activities. Then it moved on to the bible in school. Soon after it was about Christian jewelry and apparel at the work place. Now it is about anything Christian in our government. Are you aware of how many active lawsuits are going on now that are very similar to this case? You can say it ain't gonna be illegal to worship in your own home but I will disagree with that as well. On Tuesday, check out your local zoning laws. Get back with me with what you find out about "what constitutes a church". Believe it or not, some homes can be classified as a church because of the number of persons meeting there regularly. Don't tell me this is a farce either. My mother is a code enforcement officer. She and I have discussed this at length. So you see RP, the day that our Christian liberties are at risk is truly upon us. The monument issue is waking people up to that fact. That is why is is much bigger than the monument itself.

[Robert_Paulson2]

If you say so...

[f.Christian]

PL ...

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!




393 posted on 08/29/2003 8:05 PM PDT by Proud Legions

fC ...

The supreme ayatolla court declared under our living constitution evolution our national religion - science ... an illegal monopoly --- forbidding any mention of the creator --- atheism ONLY - total --- SHARIA !

[tame]

The Christian bashers, and those who react so violently against a public display of the ten commandments make me mourn for the future of my country. There is a darkness at work far greater than we often realize. God save us.

[Proud Legions]

Too good. LOL

Thanks
PL

[calvin sun]

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?

Where was Paul in the early days of the church, anyway? Was he proclaiming the Gospel with the apostles, or was he hooting in hollering in glee as Stephen was being stoned?

Where was Ronald Reagan in the days of the New Deal, anyway? Was he warning of the dangers of government dependence, or was he fully supporting FDR?

BTW, I am not implying that Dr. Dobson was opposed to the civil rights movement. I am saying, however, that people can change their opinions. What's the problem with that?

And, suppose at least ONE person at the monument marched with King. What does that do to your argument?