The 43-year-old precedent the far right wants to change

James Dobson did a lot of his usual shtick at “Justice Sunday,” railing against the judiciary, lambasting the culture that’s made him wealthy, demanding better results from the Republican Party, etc. But there was one comment from the weekend stood out for me.

“Five black-robed justices on the Supreme Court can tell us how it’s gonna be,” Dobson said. “They’re not gods. They don’t do everything right…. For 43 years, the court has been on a campaign to limit religious liberty.”

This sounds like a pretty generic rant for Dobson, but notice the specificity. He didn’t say, “For decades” the court has been a problem; he said “for 43 years.” And what, exactly, happened 43 years ago? I’m glad you asked.

In 1962, as Dobson is no doubt aware, the Supreme Court heard a case called Engel v. Vitale, which dealt with the constitutionality of a prayer written by a New York education board and recited daily in public schools. Local families — some Christian, some Jewish — argued that mandatory state-sponsored devotions conflicted with their rights as parents to teach their children religion as they see fit.

The Supreme Court agreed. The justices didn’t ban prayer — students could still worship whenever they wanted, as long as it was voluntary — but said public schools couldn’t write and dictate official prayers for everyone. The majority wrote:

“It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by the government.”

Let’s be clear: Dobson and his ilk believe Engel was decided incorrectly. Indeed, the ruling, as Dobson sees it, is an assault on religious freedom.

This is significant because it speaks volumes about the far-right agenda. Focus on the Family and their followers in Congress aren’t just defending religion in the public square; they want the government to literally be responsible for writing and dictating prayers for all public school children. They want the biggest of all possible governments: the state as religious instructor. To do otherwise is “to limit religious liberty.”

Note to Dobson: Focus on your own damn family.

They’ve even come out and said this, in the late 90s, when fewer people were listening – that the inability to impose Biblical beliefs upon others is specifically oppression of them. If they can’t oppress others, they themselves are being oppressed.

The asymmetry of this should be obvious to the casual observer, but it makes sense if you really do believe that yours is the only possible right side. As they do.

  • Solarbird’s comment made me do a quick search on evangelism. I found this quote that shows what the World Evangelical alliance would think of James Dobson’s coercion:

    “According to World Evangelical Alliance to proselytize and to evangelize are not synonymous. Citing Dr. John R.W. Stott, “The best way to distinguish them is to understand proselytism as ‘unworthy witness’. The World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church produced a helpful study document in 1970 titled ‘Common Witness and Proselytism’. It identified three aspects of proselytism. Proselytism takes place (1) whenever our motives are unworthy (when our concern is for our glory rather than God’s), (2) whenever our methods are unworthy (when we resort to any kind of ‘physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure’), and (3) whenever our message is unworthy (whenever we deliberately misrepresent other people’s beliefs). In contrast, to evangelize is (in the words of the Manila Manifesto) ‘to make an open and honest statement of the gospel, which leaves the hearers entirely free to make up their own minds about it. We wish to be sensitive to those of other faiths, and we reject any approach that seeks to force conversion on them.”

    link – http://www.worldevangelical.org/news_prosetylism_28oct03.html

    These guys mixing politics and faith are even under fire from their own kind. I wish they’d review the biblical quote that JC had about separation of church and state: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.”

  • Thanks, Peter R, for you very informative comment. I know that spreading their message is a tenet of their faith, and I knew they were doing it “wrong”, but I couldn’t quite express the reason that it was wrong. You did express it well, so thanks!

    And Mr. Carpetbagger, I almost spilled my diet Vernors all over my keyboard with your Note to Dobson to focus on his own damn family. From your “lips” to God’s ears, and can I get an AMEN!!

  • My brain just can get around this – I guess it must be wired wrong or something – seriously.

    I just don’t understand why they think Vitale was decide incorrectly. It protected them from the state (in the guise of the school system) from promoting a faith (or another version of Christianity) that they have opposed…..???? Do they want to open their kids to being preached to in school about matters of faith that are contrary to their beliefs. I just don’t get it…..

  • Comments are closed.