One would think that men of good will would not seek to disestablish a protection for the practice of religion in liberty and freedom. Yet some would do so in the very name of religion. Perhaps the protection of the religions of others is not their agenda?

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, appeared on Larry King Live on Nov 22, 2006 and attacked the wall of separation between church and State. He vehemently asserted that “The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. 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 Jefferson to a friend. That’s the only place.” He went on to rail at length against public acceptance of Constitutional validity of “the wall.”

Duh!

Of course, those specific words aren’t necessarily in the Constitution. A computer search of our founding document for “separation of church and state” won’t find them. Neither will it find words like “a system of checks and balances,” “right to a fair trial,” “no taxation without representation,” “one man, one vote,” or other time-honored Constitutional concepts but each of these is spelled out in various Articles and sections of the document. As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black explained in one landmark church-state case, “The Constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to” meddle in religion. This is the “separation of church and state” and our “religious freedom depends on it.”

Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders provided a functional guidepost for our country based on great wisdom about the relationship between government and religion, between the ideas and proclivities of men oriented toward each or neither. But when little men attempt to revise the work of giants, all manner of mischief can be done. It occurs to me that the Dobsons of the world may be so used to forming opinions based on literal extractions from the Bible that they can’t grasp the concept of Constitutional concept. Simply put, they can’t see the forest for the trees. Pronouncements from such men are not thoughtful and are dangerous to the freedom to practice your religion (or not) as you wish.

A headline for that sorry November episode might read:

“Dobson hits THE WALL, Bloodies Nose.”

© 2007 R. Leland Waldrip