Dobson on the Constitution

11-27-2006
Dr. Dobson Helps Larry King Understand ‘Separation of Church and State’
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus founder correctly points out it’s not anywhere in a foundational document.
In an interview turned history lesson, Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, helped talk-show host Larry King understand — over his protests — that “separation of church and state” is not found in the U.S. Constitution.
During last week’s hour-long conversation on Larry King Live, King quizzed Dr. Dobson on myriad topics including O.J. Simpson’s rejected book, the fall of evangelical leader Ted Haggard and Michael J. Fox’s TV ad for embryonic stem-cell research. But when the discussion turned to attempts to redefine marriage — the TV host made it an issue of separation of church and state.
KING: Why is it a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?
DOBSON: Well, it’s both. It is both.
KING: But we have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Beg your pardon?
KING: We have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don’t believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it’s not. That is not in the Constitution.
KING: It’s in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It’s not in the Bill of Rights. It’s not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called “wall of separation” was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That’s the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.
What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
KING: I’m going to check my history.
And well he should, according to Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. He said King bought into a misconception that is far too common. Many Americans continue to believe the phrase “separation of church and state” is found in the U.S. Constitution, illustrating the need for a better civics education.
“Dr. Dobson’s statement regarding separation of church and state was entirely accurate,” he said. “Most Americans do not realize that it wasn’t until 1947 that the U.S. Supreme Court imposed that metaphor — ‘separation of church and state’ — upon the country as law.”
The court actually lifted the phrase from an 1802 letter President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. They had asked him to help protect the rights of religious minorities. “Jefferson politely declined in his letter to use his office for such influence,” Hausknecht said, “explaining that the First Amendment prohibited him from doing so because it had created a ‘wall of separation of church and state.’ Although it’s not completely clear among historians as to the complete scope of Jefferson’s meaning, because of the letter’s specific historical context it’s accurate to say, as Dr. Dobson did, that Jefferson felt the First Amendment protected the church from government interference — not the opposite.”
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told CitizenLink that he shares Jefferson’s perspective.
“The words ‘separation of church and state’ are not found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation or any document of our history,” he said. “The First Amendment to our Constitution basically embodies a concept of separation — meaning that the state should stay out of the affairs of the church and of the relationship that men have with their God.”
In modern law, he said, many use “separation of church and state” with the intent to separate God, moral values and Christian principles from the state.
“It means none of that,” Moore said. “The way people use ‘separation of church and state’ is not historically or legally accurate. What it does mean is that the state can’t interfere with the church and can’t interfere with our mode of worship and our articles of faith. And that’s what ‘separation of church and state’ means.”
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration and the Constitution gave recognition to God, he said. It’s only been in the last few decades that God has been removed from the public square.
“Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist,” Hausknecht said, “called ‘separation’ a ‘metaphor based on bad history’ as he urged his fellow justices to abandon its use in First Amendment Establishment Clause cases.”
Instead of being reviled by the secular Left, he said, conservatives should be understood and appreciated as trying to restore the original understanding of the Constitution.
“We have let judges rewrite the First Amendment,” Moore said, “to actually forbid that which it was meant to allow.”
Such has become clear legally, historically and logically, he said.
“To let judges rewrite the First Amendment,” Hausknecht said, “is simply to abdicate our own responsibility as citizens to ensure that the Constitution continues to say and mean what it has always said.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION:For a transcript of Dr. James Dobson’s appearance on Larry King, click here.
CNN has posted a few highlights of the program.
Click here to read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites’ content.)

Three things that get my "Ire" up

I don’t usually get too involved in politics other than to vote, but there are a few things that get my “Ire” up. (Does that mean I’m “Ire-ish”?

Here’s a poignant quote from a recent email:

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:
1. COWS
2. THE CONSTITUTION
3. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington, and they tracked her calves to their stalls? But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.

THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq . Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using it anymore.

TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse……..You cannot post “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” and “Thou Shall Not Lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians — it creates a hostile work environment

Marriage Amendment

Today I posted this letter to the editors of several local newspapers:
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0036546.cfm
Ohioans made it clear in last November’s elections that they want to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. That same Defense of Marriage Act has been passed in several other states since then. However, it is becoming obvious that a an amendment to the state constitution is not enough. Recently, in a federal court ruling out of Nebraska, a U. S. district court judge manipulated the Constitution to declare Nebraska’s marriage-protection amendment invalid.
Judge Joseph F. Bataillon said preventing gays from marrying violated their rights to “equal protection” under the U.S. Constitution, but nothing could be further from the truth. Those in favor of same-sex marriage have had and continue to have every right and opportunity to push for passage of their own pro-gay-marriage amendment
It’s a nonsensical ruling clearly driven by a political agenda. Marriage law does not discriminate; marriage is open to any two individuals who meet certain criteria regarding age and blood relationship and who are of the opposite sex. Gay activists seek not to end discrimination, but rather to completely redefine — and thus undermine — the foundational institution of marriage.
All of this is evidence that preserving the traditional definition of marriage cannot be accomplished at the state level. Nothing short of defining marriage in the federal Constitution is sufficient to keep the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage from being redefined by leftist activists and judges.
Efforts to pass such an amendment stalled in the House and Senate last year, but the Nebraska travesty is just the impetus lawmakers need to get the job done this time around. Contact your congressman and senators today and urge them to support the Marriage Protection Amendment.