Author Topic: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies  (Read 903 times)

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #50 on: June 18, 2018, 03:40:17 PM »
It doesn't bode well for the infallible word of God to put in passages in that make sense for an oppressed minority religion but are going to be problematic when that religion becomes dominant.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2018, 03:56:23 PM »
Quote
You seem to be taking into your reading of it the idea that this is a message coming down from on-high: we are the powers that be, and you should obey us. But that's not at all the context or intent.
” For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. “  Care to unpack this for me?

That's my point: I'm not equipped to do that because I think it requires a higher degree of (a) scholarship, and (b) study than I'm capable of. I agree fully that this chapter seems really hard to parse. What on Earth could he have meant? Common sense would suggest he wasn't actually praising the individuals in the Roman government. Then what? I'm sure a theologian would have some good answers. Maybe I should go ask one and come back.

Quote
To be perfectly clear, I’m suggesting those were NOT Paul’s words.  Or more accurately, I believe that his words have been appropriated and modified / supplemented in order to create a tool of statecraft; as a means of controlling a potentially dangerous minority which had the potential to slip the usual bonds of control.

I take it you're not saying that Romans 13 itself is a fraudulent text but rather that it's been deliberately misunderstood by many for the purposes of political expediency? If so I'm sure you're right.

Quote
Quote
rather the new message is that you can attain salvation as soon as you die, which indeed is a great deal 'sooner' from a temporal point of view.
Which speaks to the MOST dangerous aspect of this religion from the stand point of a government interested in controlling people.  By tying obeisance to the state, to salvation they defuse much of this threat (from their perspective).

You can take any moral statement and turn it into something fascistic if government is enforcing it. You can take "you should die on the cross for your fellow man" and twist it into "you must die on the cross for your fellow man!" A moral of self-sacrifice turns into an intent to do murder with a text that looks quite similar. I think someone in another thread (Pyrtolin, a while back) mentioned the distortion of the virtues in Ultima 5 as a good story about how good-sounding morals can turn bad really quickly if applied (a) by force, and (b) from a position of authority rather than from down below as a guide to living a better life.

Quote
I posit that 1-7 are fraudulent additions or a reinterpretation so significant as to change the meaning.

I guess I need to ask again what exactly you mean by this.

Unless, seeing the danger they were in, the apostles ‘played it safe’ and attempted to assuage the fear some in the government were likely to have about them.  I’ll be honest, not sure if this was your point or not, but I hadn’t considered it previously.

This is also a very reasonable supposition, which would be a Straussian argument. I don't think that even if we assert something like this it should ever be taken to mean that the text itself is a mere pretext that shouldn't be taken seriously, though. But certainly the form in which it's written could have been intended to pass muster if seen by the wrong people.

Quote
Also, I should note, that I’m not suggesting that the alternative to such passages are calls for rebellion.  One can certainly preach non-violence without giving a specific government , or ALL governments, a divine mandate…

Again, I think you need to be careful of thinking Paul is suggesting that any specific government has a divine mandate. Saying that government itself has a divine basis doesn't mean that a particular government is any good at all. It may simply mean that the idea of hierarchical authority isn't a mere human artifact but has a basis in God's will. Or maybe it means that the art of politics in the Ancient Greek sense - the people making agreements amongst each other - is according to divine law, insofar as it's important for people to keep their agreements. I'm not equipped to do this but going back to the original Greek in the Septuagint might be helpful on the specific terms used here (such as for "government"). A lot of times we'll find that translators add their editorial bias or interpretation into the text for "readability" rather than literally translate the words as originally intended. This isn't merely a matter of whether we're going to literally interpret the text versus reading higher meanings into it: it's about what is even literally meant.

I'm not at all saying that therefore Sessions' use of the quote does justice to its meaning. But at the same time the argument seems to be on the table that his use of it isn't legitimate, which then bears investigating what the passage actually means. That's a toughie, it looks like. But I will make an effort to ask an expert on this and get back to the discussion with that at a later point.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #52 on: June 18, 2018, 04:32:01 PM »
That's my point: I'm not equipped to do that because I think it requires a higher degree of (a) scholarship, and (b) study than I'm capable of. I agree fully that this chapter seems really hard to parse.Not with me you don't, I take it as simple to parse, just really hard to justify in context. What on Earth could he have meant?  Other than the obvious? Common sense would suggest he wasn't actually praising the individuals in the Roman government.  Then what? I'm sure a theologian would have some good answers. Maybe I should go ask one and come back.  Let me know if you do.

I brought this topic up with a friend who suggested that the Romans didn't really factor into this thinking, that it was more of a government and religion being one and the same.  That the law is derived from God.  Not so much that God approves of the law, but more there wouldn't be law without the law of God.

It strikes me as circular and I'll likely discuss it further with him.

Quote
I take it you're not saying that Romans 13 itself is a fraudulent text but rather that it's been deliberately misunderstood by many for the purposes of political expediency? If so I'm sure you're right.
I'm saying that any deliberate misunderstanding took place long ago.  People today are interpreting it as intended, by those who did that deliberate misunderstanding.


Quote
You can take any moral statement and turn it into something fascistic if government is enforcing it.
Your response to the quoted section of mine has me entirely lost.  Can't really respond to yours.  Even re-reading what I wrote, I'm unsure how I could have failed so utterly to get my point across that this (and the remaining paragraph left unquoted) was a response to it...  sorry


Quote
I guess I need to ask again what exactly you mean by this.
A)  A third party later added that section in, attributing it to Paul as a means of controling a population.  (Subversion of "the word")
B)  Paul anticipated fearfulness and oppression by the current and future governments made it a point to include doctrine (is that the right word?) to suggest the believers did not pose a threat to the government, and in fact were ardent supporters of it.  (Self defense)

Quote
It may simply mean that the idea of hierarchical authority isn't a mere human artifact but has a basis in God's will. Or maybe it means that the art of politics in the Ancient Greek sense - the people making agreements amongst each other - is according to divine law, insofar as it's important for people to keep their agreements.
A fair point.  It seems to me, to be a long path to go to avoid a more "obvious" answer, but there's an awful lot of years between then and now.

Quote
A lot of times we'll find that translators add their editorial bias or interpretation into the text for "readability" rather than literally translate the words as originally intended.
I merely take this concept, and go one step further.  Or, to fit into what Seriati posted earlier, I am less charitable about that process.

As I find it unambiguous (though this thread has given me more to think about on that) I find Session's remarks equally unambiguously disturbing.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #53 on: June 18, 2018, 10:07:40 PM »
Quote
Please keep spreading the truth that Obamacare was rammed home
I provided evidence that it was not rammed home.  I can provide more if you want.  You simply denied that fact, with no evidence.  Just curious, why do you do that? 

Quote
The law does require a separation where there is a criminal detention (which is what happens with US citizens that are criminally detained as well).

When you continue to read your statements, you're left with the impression that there is a changed policy governing the separation of children.  No such policy exists, or can you cite to it and prove me wrong?

The policy change consists solely of charging illegal crossers (regardless of whether they are parents).  The consequences are not a change from existing policy for any parent charged with a crime.  Are you really arguing that illegal immigrants should have a special right to be released while charged with criminal conduct that our citizens don't enjoy?

Very well crafted.  You made a statement that is true, and verifiable.  Once you decide to criminally detain a parent, the law is clear.  There is no change on policy about what to do after you decide to criminally detain a parent. But it does not actually address the issue at hand.  It is carefully constructed to mislead, to convince the reader that the Trump administration is merely following the law as written. 

Bull.

  • There are two legal options for detaining parents with children.  Disprove this if you can.
  • Previous administrations chose, as a matter of policy, to use administrative detention in some cases, which allows parents and children to stay together. 
  • The Trump administration chose, as a matter of policy,  to use exclusively criminal detention, in all cases, which, as you point out, does not allow parents and children to stay together.  Disprove this if you can.

If you cannot disprove those three points, then the unquestionable conclusion is the Trump administration chose a policy for which the direct result is they must separate children and parents.

But wait!  You said
Quote
DHS changed it's policy to prosecute on criminal charges everyone crossing the border illegally.  This is a deviation from the prior policy, which was to pursue civil charges.
  which agrees with points 2 and 3.

So just try to disprove #1, i.e. prove that the previous policy of using administrative detention violated the law.  Not that it was limited in duration, or it is "catch and release", or inefficient, or it encourages illegal immigration, or that liberal groups opposed it. Prove it was illegal, so that Trump had no choice put to change the policy to conform to the law.

Don't distract by saying what the law says.  What it says is clear, but not relevant to the choices Trump made.  Tell the truth about what the legal and human consequences are of Trump policy decisions.



rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2018, 10:51:54 AM »
Quote
That's my point: I'm not equipped to do that because I think it requires a higher degree of (a) scholarship, and (b) study than I'm capable of. I agree fully that this chapter seems really hard to parse.

Take solace, there is no need for you to parse or understand that chapter, those in higher positions and learning will tell you what you need to know and follow. They are Ordained by God and you can trust them as they have no other motives then God's   :-X

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2018, 12:10:03 PM »
Quote
Please keep spreading the truth that Obamacare was rammed home
I provided evidence that it was not rammed home.  I can provide more if you want.  You simply denied that fact, with no evidence.  Just curious, why do you do that?

Here's a good procedural write up of it.  It was most certainly rammed home, using virtually every trick in the book (and some new ones).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/22/history-lesson-how-the-democrats-pushed-obamacare-through-the-senate/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c611b970aea

No Republicans voted for it in the House or the Senate.

If that doesn't qualify as rammed through, you have no real meaning for the concept.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2018, 12:38:46 PM »
Quote
No Republicans voted for it in the House or the Senate.

If that doesn't qualify as rammed through, you have no real meaning for the concept.

Party line voting does not qualify as ramming through.
Quote
Unfortunately party-line voting has become the new normal.  As recently as the early 1970s, party unity voting was around 60% but today it is closer to 90% in both the House and Senate.
link

So would you say 90% of bills are rammed through?

Here's what the concept means to me.

Lack of markups
Lack of amendments 
Lack of debate
Lack of roll call votes

Quote
In June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades. It considered more than 130 amendments and held 79 roll-call votes. The full Senate debated the health care bill for 25 straight days before passing it on Dec. 24, 2009.

here's what else it means:
Handwritten notes on final legislation that nobody can read, because it was so rushed.
First copies of a 500 page bill given to the opposing party hours before the vote.
Lobbyists see amendments before members of the opposing party

But please, don't let this distract from the main point. I am anxiously awaiting your proof that Trump had no choice but to criminally detain all immigrants.  Because if you can't prove that, then the only conclusion is that he had a choice, and chose a path that had to lead to separating families.





Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2018, 12:41:41 PM »
Very well crafted.  You made a statement that is true, and verifiable.  Once you decide to criminally detain a parent, the law is clear.  There is no change on policy about what to do after you decide to criminally detain a parent.

Which is why your prior post was misleading.

Quote
But it does not actually address the issue at hand.  It is carefully constructed to mislead, to convince the reader that the Trump administration is merely following the law as written.

It's not misleading, it's literally true that Trump is following the law as written.  Now's the part where you engage in careful crafting and omission to make that appear to not be true. 

Quote
  • There are two legal options for detaining parents with children.  Disprove this if you can.
  • Previous administrations chose, as a matter of policy, to use administrative detention in some cases, which allows parents and children to stay together. 

Detention on this basis is incredibly time limited, this is literally notwithstanding your claim of "detention" the underpinning of the catch and release program.

Explain, if you can, how your alternative allows for detention through the point of resolution of a claim, either deportation or release based on validation of the claim (usually asylum).  Answer you can't.  The fact is that administrative detention in virtually all cases results in release prior to adjudication and something like half of released persons disappear.

Quote
  • The Trump administration chose, as a matter of policy,  to use exclusively criminal detention, in all cases, which, as you point out, does not allow parents and children to stay together.  Disprove this if you can.

Why disprove it.  This is literally the law.  These crossings are criminal.  American citizens detained for criminal charges are also separated from their children.

Quote
If you cannot disprove those three points, then the unquestionable conclusion is the Trump administration chose a policy for which the direct result is they must separate children and parents.

Lol, I'd like you to say if for the record.  You want the Trump administration to selectively apply and ignore the law.

I do agree, the Trump admin chose a policy.  That policy is to end releasing people who are very likely never to report for deportation.  He ended a literal failed policy.  The consequence of that, because of previous activists that prohibited holding children in that circumstance requires separation.

You also ignore that any family can choose deportation and stay together.  Any family can appear at a port of call and claim asylum and stay together.

You also choose to ignore that promoting a policy that anyone that shows up with children will be released into the United States regardless of the merits of their right to be there, with good odds of never being deported regardless of the merit of their claim, has literally encouraged people to show up at the border with children in tow.  The amount of children making the crossing has gone massively up as a result of this emotional but misguided policy.  It incentivizes bringing children on a dangerous route.  You find separating children horrible, I find encouraging them to brought across a border illegally, exposed to smugglers and involved into organized crime to be horrible.

You also ignore that international law requires asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach.  That would literally be Mexico or a country on their path prior to Mexico.

Quote
But wait!  You said
Quote
DHS changed it's policy to prosecute on criminal charges everyone crossing the border illegally.  This is a deviation from the prior policy, which was to pursue civil charges.
  which agrees with points 2 and 3.

It deviates from the failed policy it replaces.

Quote
So just try to disprove #1, i.e. prove that the previous policy of using administrative detention violated the law.  Not that it was limited in duration, or it is "catch and release", or inefficient, or it encourages illegal immigration, or that liberal groups opposed it. Prove it was illegal, so that Trump had no choice put to change the policy to conform to the law.

Why would I "prove" it's illegal?  That's a strawman challenge.  It was failed and didn't accomplish its purpose and reflected a willful blindness to enforcing the law.

If congress doesn't like the laws it passed its free to change them.

Your argument is a nonsensical appeal to executive discretion.  A demand that a failed policy be made permanent.

If you can explain how reverting the policy stops the catch and release problem, please feel free to do so.  Until then, you're not making an argument that actually solves the problem, and you're deliberately exploiting children for a political goal and literally encouraging people to put children into harms way to buy their own ability to liver in the US.

Quote
Don't distract by saying what the law says.  What it says is clear, but not relevant to the choices Trump made.  Tell the truth about what the legal and human consequences are of Trump policy decisions.

The truth is you don't care what the law says.  This isn't about the law.  This is purely emotive.  Which ever group claims the most immediate consequence is the winner in your world. 

I happen to think a moronic system that encourages people to bring children across a border illegally for their own person benefit is doing far more harm than good.  If Congress authorizes the resources to detain families at the border pending their adjudication that's a great thing, but their failure to do so is not an endorsement of a "brought a child" illegal immigration policy exception.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #58 on: June 19, 2018, 12:44:28 PM »
Here's what the concept means to me.

Lack of markups
Lack of amendments 
Lack of debate
Lack of roll call votes

Your artificial limitations on a concept are not compelling.  Reid used every trick in the book to ram this through, it was completely party line, it was absolute rushed and forced through over every objection of the other side.  That's literally what it means to ram it through.

Quote
But please, don't let this distract from the main point. I am anxiously awaiting your proof that Trump had no choice but to criminally detain all immigrants.  Because if you can't prove that, then the only conclusion is that he had a choice, and chose a path that had to lead to separating families.

Please, feel free to wait on a response to your strawman.  Is that how you always respond when your claims were deceptive and you can't make the case?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #59 on: June 19, 2018, 01:15:09 PM »
Great post Seriati on how the public and Trump’s detractors are choosing to ignore what the administration is saying on this topic.  (their legal argument, not their religious or scapegoating BS)
Quote
If you can explain how reverting the policy stops the catch and release problem, please feel free to do so.  Until then, you're not making an argument that actually solves the problem, and you're deliberately exploiting children for a political goal and literally encouraging people to put children into harms way to buy their own ability to liver in the US.
I do take exception to this however.  Exploiting children for a political goal is exactly what this administration has chosen to do.  They are using them as hostages to end catch and release, and more generally to attempt to stem the tide of immigration. 

Is this really a situation of “fixing” immigration policy by any means necessary?  Most of the country is flinching here.  It sure looks like they prefer “failure” over such means.  I know I do.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 01:17:45 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #60 on: June 19, 2018, 02:55:34 PM »
Quote
That's my point: I'm not equipped to do that because I think it requires a higher degree of (a) scholarship, and (b) study than I'm capable of. I agree fully that this chapter seems really hard to parse.

Take solace, there is no need for you to parse or understand that chapter, those in higher positions and learning will tell you what you need to know and follow. They are Ordained by God and you can trust them as they have no other motives then God's   :-X

I know this is a bit of snark, but in reply to D.W.'s comment that I don't need to apply advanced scholarship to the issue of an ancient text, I'm afraid anyone would. It's not that only a religious person can have scholarship on a religious text, but that you simply need to know a lot to understand what an author intended. You're not just going to pick up Cicero and read it like it's the morning paper, and come out thinking you've "understood" it. Sure,  you can get something or other from it, but you'll be missing far more than you're getting, and may in fact be getting the wrong thing a lot of the time.

My point about the Bible chapter is only that parsing an ancient text requires some significant effort and that I wouldn't be prepared to denounce the use of such a chapter out of hand. I think it's sufficient to say that Sessions' intention was probably not particularly holy and we can even suggest that bringing the Bible into the subject of deporting people is crass and undignified. We can say all that, without also needing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and make some kind of claims about the text he's quoting. I've seen Nietzsche quoted incorrectly so many times that it's a joke. But it would be fruitless to start slamming Nietzsche on that basis unless thorough reading and study is going to go along with that. As a matter of fact the first time I read the NT was purely because I wanted to prove someone wrong about something, but in order to make sure I knew what I was talking about I read up first to get a greater context. In hindsight even reading through the text just once wasn't particularly 'scholarly', but then again it was a trivial point I was trying to refute.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #61 on: June 19, 2018, 03:15:09 PM »
Quote
I know this is a bit of snark, but in reply to D.W.'s comment that I don't need to apply advanced scholarship to the issue of an ancient text, I'm afraid anyone would.
It's more than a bit of snark.  This point has lead to serious divisions and branching of the church. 

To me, one of the only things more concerning than organized religion in general, is when someone says, "Let me explain to you what this means and how you should apply it to your life."

Let me get this strait, the divine spoke through someone, who may have written it down or relayed it to other people to write it down.  Then over the years it was translated.  Along with those translations, it was likely changed so that the intent or message was conveyed properly.  Then, after all that, only after considerable study and consensus building is a branch of a religion fairly unified on what was meant as a whole.  And lastly an individual priest/holy person relays their individual take, within the parameters of their religion, to their congregation?  Yikes!  I think the true example of faith is how much the divine apparently has in us as a group not to *censored* something up along the way!
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 03:24:49 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #62 on: June 19, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »
True! That's why it's not generally good to put all of your faith in a book. I think the more general point is about whether law in itself should be called a good, and therefore should be followed. I suppose that gets into jurisprudence or maybe political philosophy, which isn't my strong area. I think Seriati make a good point about the fact that to many people it's not even about the law, it's about doing 'bad things' that evidently upset people. The question then becomes how or in what way the law can be made such that it doesn't upset people - or even pleases them. Should the law even please people, or should it sometimes displease people in order to do what they need? And then there's the issue of that a person's idea about law or justice may be at odds with their gut feeling about how they'd like people to be treated. This is an issue of its own in terms of what the government should be doing.

Separating children from parents seems really bad. But what principles led to that being what's happening, and if they're wrong, then which are right?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #63 on: June 19, 2018, 04:04:29 PM »
Quote
Separating children from parents seems really bad. But what principles led to that being what's happening, and if they're wrong, then which are right?
It doesn't 'seem' bad, it IS bad.  Unless you can show that a parent/guardian, has gone from a safe and healthy environment, and that dragging a child along a dangerous crossing with an uncertain end rises to the level of child endangerment.  (meaning MORE dangerous than not making the trip)

Unless you are showing that they are not trying to do what is best for their family but are criminally negligent, then separating them IS bad. 

What seems to be at issue:  Is our national discomfort of that "bad thing" the only motivation with the potential of getting us to address our mess of an immigration policy?  While I do not trust Trump to look at the issue in good faith, and believe he is leveraging children to get money for his wall, I can't argue that it may very well take this extreme and inhumane of a prod to get Congress moving on the issue.  We know little else moves them to act on this issue.

But that's probably as far fetched as those who believe that, 'Surely THIS mass shooting will make them move on gun control?'  Republicans, as the ones at the wheel right now, need to tell this administration to release his hostages, and let them address the issue (hopefully with some bipartisan support) in Congress.  Remind him he is NOT a dictator and a tyrant instead of letting him act like one, while cowering from a portion of their voters shouting loudly through their MAGA-phones. 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #64 on: June 19, 2018, 04:26:10 PM »
Significant fractions of Americans, including some prominent commentators, advocate or at least contemplate shooting people who attempt to cross the border. That seems even more bad, but shows there is a callous disregard for the values of human life and the misery of others. It is possible to secure the border without going out of your way to punish people for the audacity of trying to get in, or to exert political pressure. What's next, minefields?

It is indeed up to Congress and to a lesser extent state government to say "not like this".

In case you think minefields are hyperbole, consider that India laid down 1800 miles worth of antipersonnel mines in 2002. They still persist today in large numbers.

This in 2010:

Quote
During the May 18 interview with KNMX radio in Las Vegas, N.M., Mullins said the U.S. could mine the border, install barbed wire and post signs directing would-be border jumpers to cross legally at designated checkpoints.

"We could put land mines along the border. I know it sounds crazy. We could put up signs in 23 different languages if necessary," Mullins says in the radio interview, where he also expressed concern that terrorists could carry a nuclear weapon across the Mexican border.

He explained Monday the suggestion about land mines was something he'd heard while campaigning, and that it came in response to a complaint that nothing could be done to secure the border.

"When I heard it, I said, 'Well, that's an interesting concept,"' Mullins said.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #65 on: June 19, 2018, 04:40:51 PM »
Quote
If you can explain how reverting the policy stops the catch and release problem, please feel free to do so.  Until then, you're not making an argument that actually solves the problem, and you're deliberately exploiting children for a political goal and literally encouraging people to put children into harms way to buy their own ability to liver in the US.
I do take exception to this however.  Exploiting children for a political goal is exactly what this administration has chosen to do.  They are using them as hostages to end catch and release, and more generally to attempt to stem the tide of immigration.

I agree.  Both sides are exploiting children, and personally, I think Trump way underestimated how repugnant this appears.

On the other hand, the counter argument seems to be to ignore the law and let anyone who show's with a kid be released into the country.

Quote
Is this really a situation of “fixing” immigration policy by any means necessary?  Most of the country is flinching here.  It sure looks like they prefer “failure” over such means.  I know I do.

I think a large part of the country is very empathetic and barely understands what's actually going on.  Given the blatant media misrepresentation that's hardly surprising.

Not sure how to fix immigration.  I have been on it for a quite a while, Congress on the other hand, has chosen to ignore it for decades.  Not much chance they are going to ignore this.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #66 on: June 19, 2018, 04:53:55 PM »
Quote
On the other hand, the counter argument seems to be to ignore the law and let anyone who show's with a kid be released into the country.

Quote
I think a large part of the country is very empathetic and barely understands what's actually going on.
I think you nailed it with the second part more than the first.  It's not that most who are outraged think a free pass if you show up with a kid is the correct policy. (granted that's an over simplification in itself) Most I expect never give it any thought, or believe they are turned away, and that's that, or they are shuffled into the legal immigration system, and vastly underestimate what a *censored*show that is.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2018, 05:43:06 PM »
Not sure how to fix immigration.  I have been on it for a quite a while, Congress on the other hand, has chosen to ignore it for decades.  Not much chance they are going to ignore this.

Funny enough, Trump ran on a specific (albeit not that well thought-out) platform on exactly this issue. It seems his idea was to first stop the process of winking and nodding about border enforcement, then deport everyone who shouldn't be here, and then to allow them back in, but legally. In theory it sounds like he was saying that people should have an easier time getting in legally than they do now (which is often ridiculous or impossible depending on which country you're from) but a harder time getting in illegally. On paper that actually sounds like an organized and good long-term solution. In practice the short-term part of it looks very messy and involves separating people from their families, removing families from what has been their home for a long time, and other harsh measures. The only alternatives, however, seem to be either continuing to let things go as they have been (i.e. doing nothing) or else to grant a complete a full amnesty to whoever's in the U.S. now and then shut the doors, which resumes at Trump's plan from where it would be easier to get in legally but harder illegally.

I'm also not sure which is best but offhand it seems to me that creating a better system for allowing people in legally should be a priority, since obviously they feel they need to be here and will come one way or the other. I don't know that there's a good option about who's already present illegally, although I've been interested in the past when I've heard talk from time to time about a general amnesty.

I tend to also agree with D.W. that whatever else happens it would be good to bring down the hammer on illegal labor. I don't know what kind of repercussions are plausible from a legal standpoint, but if people who employed illegal labor were prosecuted as if they owned literal slaves it might serve as a sufficient disincentive to do so. I've mentioned this before, but having lived in NYC the illegal labor in the restaurant business, for instance, made it very hard for people - especially young people and artists - to find decent work compared to how it would be if the real market wasn't being undercut.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #68 on: June 19, 2018, 07:15:48 PM »
Quote
Trump's plan from where it would be easier to get in legally but harder illegally.

I don't see much sign of this. Trump's efforts have also been curtailing legal work visas and raising the bar on who is allowed in. Maybe he might manage this later in his timeline, but I'm not seeing any indication.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #69 on: June 19, 2018, 08:06:05 PM »
Random thought:  An alternative to "I can't believe He/They are THAT dumb!",  What if Trump is running the God Emperor of Dune tyrant playbook?  I'm hoping we can manage in 4 years instead of 3,500 years...

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #70 on: June 19, 2018, 08:47:26 PM »
Random thought:  An alternative to "I can't believe He/They are THAT dumb!",  What if Trump is running the God Emperor of Dune tyrant playbook?  I'm hoping we can manage in 4 years instead of 3,500 years...

Well to be fair, I've always believed some variant of this is the most likely (and best) result of a Trump Presidency.  Throughout Obama's executive excesses and runaway authoritarianism I kept telling the cheerleaders they wouldn't like it when the next guy used the same powers.   And lo and behold, the next guy is a full on panic inducer that - so far - has actually been less autocratic but far scarier than i could have imagined.  We may actually get the result I most want, curtailment of executive authority.  Of course, I want Congress to step up and its still possible we'll get the far far worse result of the Bureaucracy filling the gap, or the really bad, Democratic Presidents can abuse their authority, Republican one's can't.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2018, 12:15:09 AM »
Random thought:  An alternative to "I can't believe He/They are THAT dumb!",  What if Trump is running the God Emperor of Dune tyrant playbook?  I'm hoping we can manage in 4 years instead of 3,500 years...

First time I've heard that book referenced outside of a Dune forum. Unfortunately I don't think Trump is bad enough that it's a "lesson their bones will remember." Also, the more likely result of Trump is for some people to request what came before to come back, whereas 'hydrolic despotism' is meant to cause such an explosion that things will never be the same again. I wouldn't mind a little bit of explosion myself, so long as it came in form of "we won't take this any more" and the body politic could come together to oppose something they unanimously recognize as unacceptable. Sad to say we're a long way off as something bad enough to eliminate party lines.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2018, 01:07:43 PM »
Quote
Detention on this basis is incredibly time limited, this is literally notwithstanding your claim of "detention" the underpinning of the catch and release program.

Explain, if you can, how your alternative allows for detention through the point of resolution of a claim, either deportation or release based on validation of the claim (usually asylum).  Answer you can't.  The fact is that administrative detention in virtually all cases results in release prior to adjudication and something like half of released persons disappear.

In your very long and convoluted post, you explained how you think following the previous policy is a bad idea.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that is not the point I am making.  I have made this statement many times, many ways, but you have never addressed it directly.  I will say it again.

It. Was. Trump's. Choice. To. Change. The. Policy.

Trump made the choice to take the previous policy, and replace it with a policy that requires families to be separated.

Trump made the choice.  It was not required by law, as so many have said, and lied about over and over.  Trump made the choice.

It will be clear to everyone reading whether you continue to avoid this one, central fact, or you admit that it is true.

Quote
Lol, I'd like you to say if for the record.  You want the Trump administration to selectively apply and ignore the law.

No, I want the Trump administration to prioritize in the way that every government everywhere does.

I'd like you to say for the record:
Should we instantly deport all 11 million illegal immigrants?
Should we stop and fine every single driver going 1 mile an hour over the speed limit?
Should we arrest every employer of illegal immigrants immediately?
Should we audit every single tax return and fully prosecute even the most minor mistakes?

On second thought, you don't need to bother.



TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2018, 01:47:41 PM »
Without selective application, millions of people in colorado and other states should be separated from their families because they are violating federal law. What about copyright law?

Quote
Statutory penalties are found at 18 U.S.C. § 2319. A defendant, convicted for the first time of violating 17 U.S.C. §  506(a) by the unauthorized reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500 can be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b), 3571(b)(3).

Better start rounding up everyone using Kodi, because anything else would be selective enforcement.

One can argue that immigration is much more serious and should not be overlooked, but lets not pretend that there aren't widespread federal laws that don't get enforced. (Including anti-trust?)

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2018, 03:08:04 PM »
In God we trust

Mormegil

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2018, 05:28:30 PM »
Romans was not written in chapters.  Romans 13 follows directly from Romans 12:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Then in Romans 13 it mentions that the governments are used by God.  God also used the Philistines, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians to punish Israel.  He used the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem in AD 70.  The same government ultimately killed Paul!

So when Paul is saying to obey the government, that does NOT mean Paul condones everything government is doing.  And it doesn't mean christians are to BE the government.  Christians are to never take vengeance, but the government bears not the sword in vain.  HE (the gov't) is a minister of God to YOU (the christian) for good.  There's supposed to be a distinction there between the two.

So for someone IN the government to be using Romans 13 to justify ANYTHING is ridiculous. If Sessions understood the Bible, he wouldn't dare use that excuse.

How about he should quote Daniel 4:17: "the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men."

The United States government has no special place in God's heart.  God uses the government for his purposes, but same thing for Rome or Iran.

Maybe he should also quote Acts 5 "We must obey God rather than men."

So if God commands compassion, and the government is acting without compassion, God's law should trump (no pun intended) man's law.