Posted on 08/28/2003 10:38:47 AM PDT by 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.
I suppose if the majority of Christians rose up & started denying any representation of a people group's identity to be placed in the public square--be it historical, educational, and/or religious--we wouldn't hear of any squeaks coming from your quarters, now, would we?
I'd gladly take every Christian monument and public reference down and out if God's ways were written on all of our hearts.
Here's what I'm talking about.
I'll second that! Try taking your kitchen counter scales to the marketplace and selling something by the pound. You'd be fined by the state standards board for using inaccurate scales. If you want to make sure something is right, you have to go back to the STANDARD. - BUT - It's Ok for the Supreme Court to use the last decision, based on the one before that, based on the one before that, to come to a conclusion. Unbelievable.
GO BACK TO THE STANDARD!
Just like Rahab, eh Bob? (Joshua 2; 6:22-25; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25)
Just like Moses' mom, eh Bob?
Just like Peter & the other apostles, eh Bob? (Acts 5:29)
Just like the angels who spoke to Jesus' own folks, eh Bob? (Telling them to skip off to Egypt & avoid Herod)
Shalom.
I suppose if the majority of Christians rose up & started denying any representation of a people group's identity to be placed in the public square--be it historical, educational, and/or religious--we wouldn't hear of any squeaks coming from your quarters, now, would we?
It's one thing to be PO'd about the Judge Moore circus sideshow. It's quite another to equate it with some of the most despicable behavior in U.S. history.
Sorry -- but the two are worlds apart.
Just like in the US Supreme Court, right?
Get real. Do you really think that anyone who saw that monument for one moment thought about converting to either Judaism or Christianity? It was just a monument to the 10 commandments, nothing more, nothing less.
More importantly, if it had been a 6 foot tall cylindrical monument celebrating homosexuals in the law, it would be standing there today and anyone who complained about it would be a "hatemonger."
Shalom.
come up with a new title other than civil "rights." unalienable rights
Different only in degree. In both cases folks wanted to deny others representation in the public square. Blacks in a previous era were supposed to closetize their representation @ the voting booth. For religious folk with a Judeo-Christian heritage, we are now being suppressed & told to closetize our representation in the public square.
people instinctively know that religion and state are not good together... and see it as UNconstitutional.
While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.
From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."
The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300). The Pink Swastika
Now, 25 years later, I am ashamed to be a Democrat. More than that, I have come to fear my own party. Hatred and corruption - the roots of fascism - are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party. Increasingly, mainstream Democrats are uncomfortable with what we see in our party. We may not have a real name for it, but we know it is dangerous. DNC Fascists -WorldNetDaily, Bob Just, July 25, 2000
Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?
A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Texas Straight Talk: An Interview With Ron Paul - Sierra Times. ... & Only half would vote for Constitution
If our meek acceptance of the ongoing removal of all symbols of that acknowledgment is, as I suspect, a true reflection of the hearts of modern Americans, then no monument, no statue, no cross will stave off the wretched future that lies before us. I would say, 'God help us',but a people who reject the God who has so mightily blessed them deserve the fate they choose.
Solzhenitsyn's consistent resort to the context of religion for his social and political pronouncements is apparent in his Templeton Address of 1983, in which he speaks about his own country. He rehearses how he heard his elders explain all the horrors that that the Bolshevik Revolution had inflicted upon the citizenry by saying, simply, "Men have forgotten God. That is why all this has happened." And he goes on to say that if he were to give an account for all the horrors of our terrible twentieth century, he could do no better to provide a pithy explanation than to repeat what he had heard from his elders: Men have forgotten God" Solzhenitsyn On America
1785, If men are so wicked with religion,what would they be if without it? Franklin's Advice to Thomas Paine Regarding the Age of Reason
Which I could agree with...
But dont you think there is a state/federal conflict here?
MLK isn't one trillionth the man Dobson is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.