The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2018, 10:38:03 AM

Title: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2018, 10:38:03 AM
Attorney General Jeff Sessions quotes Bible to defend immigration policies: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44499048

Wondering what people think of Jeff Sessions using this Bible verse to defend policies
Romans 13 "to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes"

My take on that was shut up and obey, daddy knows best... another shot, step at dismantling democracy?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 10:46:27 AM
What does quoting the Bible have to do with the premise that laws should be obeyed? You either agree with that premise or you don't. His basis in the Bible is maybe why he does but that's immaterial, since plenty of other people presumably agree with the sentiment even if they're not practicing Christians.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 15, 2018, 11:05:45 AM
He didn't use the Bible to defend it.  He used it to deflect the issue.  This is par for the course in leveraging religion for politics.  I mean, what else are you going to do with it?  All that morality is a real pain in the ass when it comes to Making America Great Again.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Wayward Son on June 15, 2018, 11:11:56 AM
He would have been wiser to quote Isaiah 10:1-3 instead.

Quote
1 What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws. 2 They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. They prey on widows and take advantage of orphans. 3 What will you do when I punish you, when I send disaster upon you from a distant land? To whom will you turn for help? Where will your treasures be safe?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 11:16:46 AM
Deflect from which issue?  That the law of the country dictates the deportation of several million people?  Or that no one in Congress has put in place a real fix, or even really tried in decades? 

Honestly, the idea that the media is acting as an honest broker in this is absurd.  There are plenty of valid reasons we have immigration policies, and plenty of reasons to amend them, NONE of which they cover.  Instead, we get media "personalities" accusing a spokesperson of having no compassion for children.

Fix the law, quit complaining that it's being followed.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: DonaldD on June 15, 2018, 11:27:00 AM
Quote
plenty of other people presumably agree with the sentiment even if they're not practicing Christians.
True, but they believe that they are practicing Christians...
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 11:33:23 AM
He would have been wiser to quote Isaiah 10:1-3 instead.

Quote
1 What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws. 2 They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. They prey on widows and take advantage of orphans. 3 What will you do when I punish you, when I send disaster upon you from a distant land? To whom will you turn for help? Where will your treasures be safe?

Sure, and then you could get into give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. There's a difference between making an unjust law and enforcing an unjust law. I don't know if it's fair to blame the person carrying out the law, although maybe that depends on the kind of injustice. If a law called for gunning down innocent people then I hope people would disobey it. On the other hand if it calls for arresting people for shoplifting, but who happen to be starving, I'm not sure it would be laudable to refuse to enforce laws about theft even though we can sympathize with those in need.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: NobleHunter on June 15, 2018, 11:40:06 AM
Deflect from which issue?  That the law of the country dictates the deportation of several million people?  Or that no one in Congress has put in place a real fix, or even really tried in decades? 

Honestly, the idea that the media is acting as an honest broker in this is absurd.  There are plenty of valid reasons we have immigration policies, and plenty of reasons to amend them, NONE of which they cover.  Instead, we get media "personalities" accusing a spokesperson of having no compassion for children.

Fix the law, quit complaining that it's being followed.

They aren't complaining the issue of illegal immigrants in general, they're complaining about taking kids from their parents. The Republicans are trying to deflect they're being monstrous.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 15, 2018, 11:40:12 AM
Quote
Deflect from which issue?
That as a whole, the Bible is pretty clear on how we should be treating these people.  That's not to say I'm an amnesty for all, throw the gates wide type when it comes to illegal immigration.  It's just that using the Bible this way is about as deep down the hypocrisy hole as one can get.

Were it up to me, I would financially penalize anyone hiring an undocumented worker so severely that you would have to be a insane to even attempt it.  Boom, problem solved.  Now we can spend time stream lining immigration to account for any actual workforce needs we have as a country instead of pretending this is a policy issue instead of a means to exploit people for cheep labor or for fear-mongering to increase turnout (used by both sides).
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 11:53:01 AM
I know this is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know the specific rationale for why the children are being separated from their parents? It seems cruel to just take the kids away to punish the parents, if that's all it is. That would be a very draconian deterrent. On the other hand, there's a parallel in the U.S. which may be overlooked when considering the matter. It's become more or less standard for American children to be taken away from their parents when there's negligence going on, and although I frankly don't care for that practice either it seems to have gone on without much fuss. Assuming (charitably) that the border enforcement is using concern for the children as the criterion, would it not be a similar argument that if parents are willing to try to smuggle their children over the border that they're endangering their children and should be separated from them? Again, I'm not trying to justify this, but rather to suggest that maybe it has something in common with how such matters are handled within the U.S. already.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 15, 2018, 12:05:11 PM
It is a deterrent.  They've openly stated as much.  However, the optics are magnified by the number of unaccompanied minors; which are in turn distorted by parents urging their kids to cross over to relatives already on this side. 

To answer the negligence question, one would have to know the circumstances they are attempting to flee.  If the parents genuinely believe (and are probably correct) that the gamble they make crossing over is likely to lead to a better life for their child, is that really neglect? 

They aren't coming here to break the law.  They are desperate.  Fear of having your family broken up has been calculated as a force stronger than this desperation.  Being detained and deported certainly hasn't proved enough of a deterrent. 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 15, 2018, 12:21:35 PM
Deflect from which issue?  That the law of the country dictates the deportation of several million people?  Or that no one in Congress has put in place a real fix, or even really tried in decades? 

Honestly, the idea that the media is acting as an honest broker in this is absurd.  There are plenty of valid reasons we have immigration policies, and plenty of reasons to amend them, NONE of which they cover.  Instead, we get media "personalities" accusing a spokesperson of having no compassion for children.

Fix the law, quit complaining that it's being followed.

Fact:  It is not a law that children must be separated from parents.  It is a policy that has been decided by the Trump administration. There were policies in place that gave latitude in certain situations, and those policies were superseded by the "Zero-Tolerance Policy".  Retract that policy, and families can stay together as they did for years, without breaking the law.

Should we have immigration reform to resolve this policy dispute?  Most definitely!  What is holding us back?  Hint: It is not the party without control of the House, or the Senate, or the White House.

I
It is a deterrent.  They've openly stated as much.  However, the optics are magnified by the number of unaccompanied minors; which are in turn distorted by parents urging their kids to cross over to relatives already on this side. 

To answer the negligence question, one would have to know the circumstances they are attempting to flee.  If the parents genuinely believe (and are probably correct) that the gamble they make crossing over is likely to lead to a better life for their child, is that really neglect? 

They aren't coming here to break the law.  They are desperate.  Fear of having your family broken up has been calculated as a force stronger than this desperation.  Being detained and deported certainly hasn't proved enough of a deterrent. 

So as a deterrent, it's pretty feeble.  Here's a deterrent:  In order to get here, pay a criminal thousands of dollars, not knowing if he will show up, or just leave you in a truck in the desert.  If he does follow through, you will have to walk dozens of miles through the desert.  In the summer.  With your kids. 

If someone is willing to do that, I don't think separating your kids from you once you get here is going to make them stop. 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 15, 2018, 12:41:47 PM
Let's step back and look again at what Sessions said:
Quote
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Ind. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

The bolded part has to be the most un-American thing I have heard from a government official in my life.  God did not ordain this government for his purposes.

In God We Trust. 
We can assume the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle us. 
We can be endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.
We can ask that God Bless America, and be one Nation under God.

But to claim God has ordained any existing government for his purposes (never mind this particular government) is anathema.  Monarchies do this.  Empires with allegedly God-descended emperors such as Japan did this.  The Islamic State does this. 
Americans do not do this.  It bridges no criticism, or efforts at reform. If you don't like it, take it up with God. Welcome to the Republic of Gilead.

Did God ordain the government of Iran? How about North Korea?  Where exactly in the Bible does it say which governments this applies to?

Not surprisingly, this  same verse was used to defend slavery, and to oppose the American Revolution.


Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 12:47:58 PM
I know this is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know the specific rationale for why the children are being separated from their parents?

It's hard but not impossible to find because so much of what is written asserts the behind the scenes rationale as the factual basis.  However, it seems to be fairly straight forward.

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.  The material difference is that for civil charges the person charged was assigned a court date and then released with an instruction to return to court (ie the "catch and release" program), and many never showed up again. 

With a criminal charge the person is detained pending resolution of the case.  Children cannot be detained in that manner, so like with any child where their custodial parent is detained for criminal charges and no other responsible adult is available they are turned over to child services.

However, there does seem to be a concerted, and frankly inexcusable, plan to increase the pain and ridiculously poor provision for tracking the children (or else we're only hearing reports on relatively fringe cases).

As far as I can tell there is no literal policy directing the removal or breakup of families, it's all derivative of prosecuting the parents on criminal charges.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 12:59:15 PM
They aren't complaining the issue of illegal immigrants in general, they're complaining about taking kids from their parents. The Republicans are trying to deflect they're being monstrous.

Actually, it's only being phrased that way because Dem's react on emotionally matters more than logical ones.  The real fact is that the only way to "not separate" a family is not to detain the parent. However, the government is acting properly in detaining the parent and is entitled to prosecute them.  Ergo, they are in fact demanding that we return to "catch and release" whereby the immigration law will continue to be frustrated.

In fact, the entire issue that kid's can't be detained with the Parents has it's own history of activism and was in fact a previous demand of the left.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 01:01:33 PM
The bolded part has to be the most un-American thing I have heard from a government official in my life.  God did not ordain this government for his purposes.

I'm no expert in Bible interpretation but that strikes me as a serious misread of the verse in question. The verse is clearly on about something to do with respecting the law and authority in general. What's not clear to me is exactly what the context was of Paul writing this, and what the intention behind the statement is. It's also unclear to what extent the chapter is meant to be an allusion to theological authority and therefore a double meaning, rather than just being a statement to obey the laws of the land. But the idea of obeying the laws of the land is a pretty Biblical thing.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 15, 2018, 01:06:11 PM
Democrats could have passed any law they wanted, literally, under Obama for a nice little period of time. They could have undone all the immigration laws, granted a mass amnesty, and passed any new laws for any system of immigration they wanted. Even if every single Republican voted against it the Democrats still could have rammed it home, just like they did with Obamacare. They chose not to. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame the current President and his administration for enforcing the laws that a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat President chose to leave on the books.

As for why separate the children from the parents, I heard it was because children can't be housed with adults in a prison population so classifying the law breakers as criminals and now prisoners changes things a bit from the way they were classified before, as was just pointed out. Just adding the part about it being illegal to house children with adults in prison. Not certain but it seems like they are classifying the immigrant detention facilities as more like prisons than they were before. If there is a way to keep the families together that would of course be better. Since they can no longer claim asylum for domestic violence and criminal violence like with the gangs down there hopefully the vast majority of families can be kept together as they are summarily rejected in their asylum claims and all returned home immediately. It was always pretty ridiculous to say that a person from a country with a stable government should be able to come to America just because his wife beat him constantly for not being able to find a good job. That happens in America too.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 01:07:48 PM
Fact:  It is not a law that children must be separated from parents.

It actually is law where the parent is detained, as children have to be released from detention quickly.

Quote
It is a policy that has been decided by the Trump administration. There were policies in place that gave latitude in certain situations, and those policies were superseded by the "Zero-Tolerance Policy".  Retract that policy, and families can stay together as they did for years, without breaking the law.

It's a consequence of enforcing the law that allows the government to file criminal charges.

You should also note that it doesn't apply to any asylum seeker that crosses the border at a legitimate spot, only to those that cross illegally, as the criminal charge is for the illegal crossing.

So again, "retract the policy" means return to catch and release, which is not "without breaking the law" as demonstrated by history or facts.  Families released disappear rather than come back to be deported.

Quote
Should we have immigration reform to resolve this policy dispute?  Most definitely!  What is holding us back?  Hint: It is not the party without control of the House, or the Senate, or the White House.

It is, it's also the Republicans.  It's complete bad faith in framing issues (which you're endorsing here) and inability to compromise, coupled with literal lying about goals.  Preventing illegal immigration is a majority position, yet Dems' will never support it because it's against their self interest.  That's part of the bad faith that keeps them from working with a very motivated portion of the Republicans that could  compromise.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
With a criminal charge the person is detained pending resolution of the case.  Children cannot be detained in that manner, so like with any child where their custodial parent is detained for criminal charges and no other responsible adult is available they are turned over to child services.

Thanks for the explanation. It would have taken me a lot of searching to come up with that, assuming your statement is accurate. *If* this is the case then it makes the whole thing seem not quite as bad, putting aside the issue of bad implementation, because that's a whole other can of worms. If there is indeed intent to make the kids suffer, or make the parents suffer through knowing their kids are being taken away, I would call that abusive or even torture. But if it's a just a question of a lack of organization in trying to implement something legal then it becomes more an issue of that's just what governments are like, sad as it is.

I read one article showing that kids were being detained in a defunct Walmart Superstore, with separated rooms that don't have doors. That sounds bad, although I suppose it's not as bad as starving to death since the article said they were being fed BBQ chicken and sandwiches.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/us/inside-immigrant-children-shelter-brownsville-texas-invs/index.html

I'm not informed enough about all of this to have a real opinion but I do think it's inevitable that if the borders were to ever be secured there would be growing pains to achieve it. Since that *is* the mandate the President campaigned on it seems like in a sense this is following the will of the people, for better or worse.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 01:10:51 PM
Not clear to me why it matters whether Sessions is motivated by God or something else, where the motivation is to enforce the laws, which is his literal job as the Attorney General.  It seems far more of a dog whistle than any type of legitimate criticism.  Unless the argument is that non-Religious people believe that we should not follow law as some kind of tenant of non-faith?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2018, 01:33:54 PM
Quote
Not clear to me why it matters whether Sessions is motivated by God or something else, where the motivation is to enforce the laws, which is his literal job as the Attorney General.  It seems far more of a dog whistle than any type of legitimate criticism.  Unless the argument is that non-Religious people believe that we should not follow law as some kind of tenant of non-faith?

Interesting: I wasn’t actual concerned with which law he was defending or deflecting… but the use of the Bible in this way as a public figure.
Your right why should it matter if Sessions is motivated by God... However the laws and his Office represent all American, many who do not believe in God… And what if Sessions quoted the Quran? Would you defend sharia law in the same manner?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 15, 2018, 01:43:08 PM
It probably matters to many people because it's not likely that Jesus would ever condone turning away these desperately needy people so to make it palatable to Christians a religious rationale must be concocted in order to justify what is very difficult under the precepts of "real" Christianity.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 01:57:24 PM
Your right why should it matter if Sessions is motivated by God... However the laws and his Office represent all American, many who do not believe in God… And what if Sessions quoted the Quran? Would you defend sharia law in the same manner?

What does sharia law have to do with it?  We're talking about US law, and I don't care what his motivation is for doing his job and enforcing the law.  The risk is that someone won't follow the law because of religion not that he will.  I have no problem, at all, with a Muslim that believes it's their religious duty to faithfully execute US law.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
It probably matters to many people because it's not likely that Jesus would ever condone turning away these desperately needy people so to make it palatable to Christians a religious rationale must be concocted in order to justify what is very difficult under the precepts of "real" Christianity.

It strikes me as being a complicated issue because the NT was written at a time when Christians had no political power and were persecuted. So the idea of obeying the laws of the land would have had a different connotation for them than it would for a group actually in dominant political power and looking for how to enforce the laws. I doubt Romans 13 can be realistically taken as being a guide for how to govern a nation, even though on its face it does seem to say that secular authority is to be respected. The moral mayhem begins when people purportedly Christian are also the ones making and enforcing the laws, since the doctrine of turning swords into plowshares seems incompatible with governance through force (this reminds me of Pete's many comments in the past about the issues with 'Christendom'). How to negotiate armed governance (i.e. backed up by police and military) with a 'Christian approach' is weird to even contemplate.

However, the main thrust of U.S. law right now is that it's been made by elected representatives and in itself isn't a religious law but simply the law. Individuals can have any reason they like why they believe in it or follow it, and for Sessions to cite the NT about why he believes in it is well and good for him. Maybe it's a dog whistle for Christians but that doesn't particularly address the basic validity of whether or not the law in general should be obeyed.

It's tempting to think of hard-line right wingers as having cognitive dissonance over Jesus' teachings on the one hand and a harsh view on immigration law on the other hand. But I think it's a non-trivial matter in itself to try to reconcile how to run a nation and secure its borders while at the same time adhering to the minutiae of every teaching in the NT. I mean, an argument can be made that a 'good Christian' ought to be living a life of poverty; some certainly believe that. So how do you apply that maxim to a nation? Let's have no GDP or productivity?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 15, 2018, 02:07:27 PM
Which is a good reason to separate church & state. 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 15, 2018, 02:16:39 PM
Which is a good reason to separate church & state.

Separating chuch from state means there can't be an official state religion or a banning of diverse religious practices. It does not mean that people of a faith can't contribute their thoughts and values to the process of governance. Especially in a representative democracy (or even more so if it was a direct democracy) you'd better believe there will be no separation of religious convictions and reasons to supports public policy. It doesn't mean the public policy will be religious in itself, but its origin can certainly be religious if the majority votes in someone who represents their interests. In fact, part of the separation of church and states necessarily means that religious reasons for decision-making cannot be barred, so if anything it's a protection specifically to use religious reasoning in determining who to vote for or what to support. It doesn't at all imply that religion will have no connection to governance, as many people seem to take it to mean.

But you're right that the separation does mean that, in principle, the attorney general (for example) doesn't have to mull over the difficulties of how to enforce the law 'in a Christian way' since he doesn't make the law. Whatever latitude he does have in implementation may employ his personal beliefs, but he's also subordinate to an elected official who is supposed to represent the will of the people in some way. The mass of private citizens of Christian faith (assuming their will is carried out at all) will certainly have to privately mull over the question of how to government a powerful nation under 'Christian principles'.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 15, 2018, 02:56:02 PM
Can't disagree with any of that.  What I was implying was one can avoid internal conflict and hypocrisy a lot more easily if you don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole.  (Such as an attempt to provide a religious rational to support an immigration policy that can outwardly appear callous.)

Though, that implies that most religions are not political tools by design, left vague enough (in almost all its flavors) to prove useful in convincing people they should support almost any position.  So maybe he's just really bad with the hammer and there's nothing wrong with the peg.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2018, 02:57:25 PM
Sorry Seriati I just don't buy you defending the statement if it was made by a public official who used the Quran and or was a Democrat.
Its ok not like something a Republican says or does, you won't lose your membership or identity.

 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2018, 03:02:56 PM
Quote
What I was implying was one can avoid internal conflict and hypocrisy a lot more easily if you don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I agree, there was no reason to use the quote to defend the principle that Laws are meant to be followed.
I suspect this was intended for a specific audience and keep the current politicization alive and well. Well played but dangerous
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 15, 2018, 05:58:56 PM
Sorry Seriati I just don't buy you defending the statement if it was made by a public official who used the Quran and or was a Democrat.

You have a very bizarre view of me, which makes sense based on only seeing things posted on the internet. 

For the record,  Obama did a great thing with normalizing relations with Cuba, the US's record on that front was appalling and completely inconsistent with how we should always have wanted to present ourselves.  The picture of Trump saluting a NK general demonstrates that he's still a political neophyte making mistakes that no President should ever make.

And to be really clear, I don't have an issue with anyone having faith and sticking to it.  I'm not discriminatory on that front.  If your faith is inconsistent with public service it's on you to resign, it is not okay to impose your faith on that service.  If your faith is not inconsistent with service then I'm happy to have you serve.  That doesn't mean I have to accept anyone's views, whether faith based or not that are inimical to our way of life.  If the flying spaghetti monster tells you to enforce the law, that's great in my book, if the Jedi code tells you to oppress women it's bad. 

So in your prior example, again, a Muslim who's faith encourages him to faithfully enforce US law is great in my book, one whose faith requires they impose Sharia law should decline to serve in a role such as Attorney General.  It's utterly bizarre to complain about religion, when the prescript of that religion is to do the actual job of the position you hold.
 
Quote
Its ok not like something a Republican says or does, you won't lose your membership or identity.

Well, you actually might, there are plenty of people labelled Rino's or as the Democrats are referred to as "moderates."  I'm not aligned with Republicans on many social issues, though I'm not aligned with the Democrat's on how they go about seeking change on the same issues.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 15, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
Democrats could have passed any law they wanted, literally, under Obama for a nice little period of time. They could have undone all the immigration laws, granted a mass amnesty, and passed any new laws for any system of immigration they wanted. Even if every single Republican voted against it the Democrats still could have rammed it home, just like they did with Obamacare. They chose not to. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame the current President and his administration for enforcing the laws that a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat President chose to leave on the books.

No,Democrats did not follow their leadership 100% on every issue  (Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, for example).  And this is whataboutism anyway. We are talking about what to do now.

"Ramming home" Obamacare is a myth.  Please stop propagating it.

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.

Note that this was not done under reconciliation.

Fact:  It is not a law that children must be separated from parents.

It actually is law where the parent is detained, as children have to be released from detention quickly.



Just curious, was your statement juxtaposed with my statement intended to appear to rebut it?  Because if you actually read it, it does no such thing.

Here, I think this reinforces my actual point, that it was a policy change that drove the separation.

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.

Keeping the prior policy would prevent separation.  Which is what I said. And by DHS you mean the Trump administration, and by the Trump administration you mean Trump.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 15, 2018, 11:25:07 PM
Not clear to me why it matters whether Sessions is motivated by God or something else, where the motivation is to enforce the laws, which is his literal job as the Attorney General.  It seems far more of a dog whistle than any type of legitimate criticism.  Unless the argument is that non-Religious people believe that we should not follow law as some kind of tenant [sic] of non-faith?

Missed the point entirely.

Sessions claimed that "God has ordained [this] government for his purposes".  He is not just saying it is good to obey the law because God likes that, which is wrong on many levels anyway. He is saying that if you are against our government, you are against God. Very, very different, and very very dangerous.


Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 16, 2018, 12:04:42 AM
Sessions claimed that "God has ordained [this] government for his purposes".  He is not just saying it is good to obey the law because God likes that, which is wrong on many levels anyway. He is saying that if you are against our government, you are against God. Very, very different, and very very dangerous.

How do you know he meant that? It is not in evidence based on what he actually said, so do you have additional information that would lead you to this interpretation? Note that the use of the square-bracketed "this" is crucial to your interpretation even though Sessions never said it. Or maybe you took a peek at the original Greek to see what Romans really says?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 16, 2018, 08:31:35 AM
Sessions claimed that "God has ordained [this] government for his purposes".  He is not just saying it is good to obey the law because God likes that, which is wrong on many levels anyway. He is saying that if you are against our government, you are against God. Very, very different, and very very dangerous.

How do you know he meant that? It is not in evidence based on what he actually said, so do you have additional information that would lead you to this interpretation? Note that the use of the square-bracketed "this" is crucial to your interpretation even though Sessions never said it. Or maybe you took a peek at the original Greek to see what Romans really says?



His speech was regarding following the laws of this government.  He then said that God ordained the Government. He then followed that up again by saying that people should obey laws.

Which government do you think he meant?  The government of Rome in the 1st century A.D.?  That is the only other government that is remotely related to the quote.  Using a general government doesn't mean anything.  It needs to be applied to a specific case, and it just so happens that Sessions was talking about a specific case.  Do you think that is coincidence?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Crunch on June 16, 2018, 09:15:58 AM
Quote
He then followed that up again by saying that people should obey laws.

Whoa, wait a minute. He said people should obey laws!?!. I didn’t realize we’d sunk to this level. People obeying laws, yeah, that’s horrific.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 16, 2018, 11:50:36 AM
Quote
He then followed that up again by saying that people should obey laws.

Whoa, wait a minute. He said people should obey laws!?!. I didn’t realize we’d sunk to this level. People obeying laws, yeah, that’s horrific.

You do realize that you just pulled one sentence completely out of context? 

Please answer this honestly- do you believe that I criticized Sessions for saying that people should obey laws?
If the answer is yes, provide evidence.
If the answer is no, then please explain the purpose of your post.  If it is a joke, it's only purpose is to make me look stupid.

Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 16, 2018, 06:58:19 PM
His speech was regarding following the laws of this government.  He then said that God ordained the Government. He then followed that up again by saying that people should obey laws.

Your first sentence does not follow from the second and third ones. You may think they do, but they don't.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro on June 16, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
OK, I will reorder them.

He said that God ordained the Government.  Then he said that people should obey laws.  He was talking about laws for this government.  Why would he say anything about Government if he did not mean this government?

"I think that the players should stand for the national anthem.  And I think that NFL owners are right in enforcing rules that players have to stand."

(Just an example, not my opinion)

What players do you think I mean when I say "the players"?  Just anyone?  Piano players?  Poker players?  Given what I followed up with, it is nonsensical to consider any players other than NFL players.

Just so, it is nonsensical to think Sessions was referring to any other government.  Please name another government you think he was referring to.  Or if you think he meant governments in general, please explain how that applies to the governments of Iran, China, and North Korea.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2018, 12:40:55 AM
He said that God ordained the Government.  Then he said that people should obey laws.  He was talking about laws for this government.  Why would he say anything about Government if he did not mean this government?

I will explain it as best I can. The quote says that "government" is ordained. That could mean anything from the concept of a ruling organization among men, to the idea that worldly concerns are not divorced from religious ones. I will also point out that your first sentence is not a correct rendering, because the quote doesn't specify that God ordained THE government. You are repeatedly including wording that you're adding that isn't in the quote. Why are you doing that?

To answer your broader point, the quote surely cannot be about any particular government because in the context in which it was said the ruling government was the Roman Empire. And clearly the early Christians wouldn't have been approving of the Empire, and so the statement cannot be taken to mean an endorsement of any particular government. Rather, it means that regardless of what kind of government there is the people should obey the laws. When taken to its extreme one could then take it to mean "be slaves forever" but it's not a statement about political philosophy. I'm not qualified to go into all of the things it might mean, but it does not mean that. There is doubtless a deep philosophical intention in suggesting that law must take precedence, but one doesn't need to say anything about particular laws to make that statement. Consider the issue of mercy: in order to show mercy there must be a law in the first place that one chooses to relax in a particular situation. If there is no law then the concept of mercy doesn't mean very much. Likewise, there can't be a basis for improving on the law if law itself isn't respected in the first place. There's something analogous in artistic training, where first one must obtain disciplined instruction regardless of what one is doing with that instruction, and later on the disciplined skill is what can be used to invent and innovate. But if the discipline is never achieved then the invention will never be possible. So it is, I think, with the concept of obeying authority in the abstract.

As you can see the issue is more immense than I can even explain. I'm not willing to make any bets that Sessions had any of this in mind when he said what he said; maybe it was something he muttered as a political expedient and as a dog whistle. But that possibility doesn't mute the fact that there could be legitimate meaning to it as well. If you think that he was privately thinking that God has ordained America that's fine, but what he overtly said did not communicate this.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 18, 2018, 10:48:01 AM
Quote
Roman's 13
1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

8 Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. 9 For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.”13:9a Exod 20:13-15, 17. These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law.
11 This is all the more urgent, for you know how late it is; time is running out. Wake up, for our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is almost gone; the day of salvation will soon be here. So remove your dark deeds like dirty clothes, and put on the shining armor of right living. 13 Because we belong to the day, we must live decent lives for all to see. Don’t participate in the darkness of wild parties and drunkenness, or in sexual promiscuity and immoral living, or in quarreling and jealousy. 14 Instead, clothe yourself with the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t let yourself think about ways to indulge your evil desires.

Growing up the use of this chapter was more often then used to stop the questioning of authorities and those that new best.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 18, 2018, 12:07:12 PM
What follows is a likely offensive to many anti-religious rant.  Sorry about that, feel free to skip it; but this particular quirk of doctrine gets me worked up. 

It's excerpts like that which drove me from the church.  Nothing made it more clear to me that, while I am likely to always believe in God and many of the moral lessons taught to me growing up Roman Catholic, religion is a tool of statecraft.  (or a parallel track to gaining power over others)   :'(

That's not to say every worshiper or priest or nun or bishop is a willing partisanship of some grand conspiracy, but it's a dangerous tool for those inclined to use it.  (and an apt description for many who try :P )  That anyone can look at this and similar passages and not instantly understand that unchecked morality is a threat to political powers so they saw fit to put in safety measures boggles my brain. 

In fact the only thing that makes me not scoff at those who think the entirety of the Bible is holy writ passed down by the divine, is just how long, and with how few 'translations' or versions were needed to keep it as useful a tool now as it ever was.  Maybe Big Father is a fan of Big Brother and always has been?  Jokes on me then I guess.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 18, 2018, 12:41:59 PM
"Ramming home" Obamacare is a myth.  Please stop propagating it.

Please keep spreading the truth that Obamacare was rammed home and is a Democratic owned policy 100%, notwithstanding, the blatant attempts to revise history.

Quote
Fact:  It is not a law that children must be separated from parents.

It actually is law where the parent is detained, as children have to be released from detention quickly.



Just curious, was your statement juxtaposed with my statement intended to appear to rebut it?  Because if you actually read it, it does no such thing.

Because your statements were wrong as drafted, by part, and by implied whole.  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?

Quote
Here, I think this reinforces my actual point, that it was a policy change that drove the separation.

Yes.  The Trump administration decided to enforce the law.  It's bizarre that enforcing the law is a "policy change" particularly when not enforcing the law has fundamentally failed at achieving the objective of our immigration policy.  It'd be something else if catch and release were shown to actually work.

Quote
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.

Keeping the prior policy would prevent separation.  Which is what I said. And by DHS you mean the Trump administration, and by the Trump administration you mean Trump.

Lots of things could "prevent separation."  It sounds to me like you are expressly arguing that illegal immigrants should not be charged with criminal conduct as provided for in our laws.  I agree, if we ignore their actions there would be no separation.  Or we could revise our laws to keep the families together and detained, but then you'd be on here complaining about detained innocent children (not a speculation, this literally was the genesis for why the children are not detained today).

Your argument really just seems to be that Trump is wrong because he's applying our actual laws.  Fix the laws if you want a different result.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 18, 2018, 12:51:54 PM
It's excerpts like that which drove me from the church.  Nothing made it more clear to me that, while I am likely to always believe in God and many of the moral lessons taught to me growing up Roman Catholic, religion is a tool of statecraft.  (or a parallel track to gaining power over others)   :'(

Just curious, what about Romans 13 sounds to you like a tool of statecraft? Keep in mind when answering that the passage is written regarding people without political power and is about how they should respect their local authorities.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 18, 2018, 01:05:11 PM
1-7:  A better question is what does NOT sound like it?  This is strait up, obey the government because God wants you to.
8-10:  window dressing trying to pair 1-7 with the more objectively “good” moral code of the book.
11-12:  This isn’t just a “good idea”, your soul is on the line, and one slip up here and you may not get a chance to correct things! Also, the time is short angle works on another level that reminds you that your suffering won't be endless, and may even be short!  Wheeee!
13-14:   It’s not only a good thing for YOU, but by doing so, you are helping others!  Jesus would be proud of you.

This is pure, distilled control.  This is your lot in life.  Not only should you accept it, but you should believe you deserve it, and it’s God’s plan for you to endure it.
 
Translation:  Oh *censored* oh *censored* oh *censored* please don’t rise up and rebel.  There SURE are a lot of you and your belief in an afterlife and your soul being more important than your earthly well being and comfort scares us more than you will ever know.  Or CAN ever know, if we hope to retain power.  Let’s just insert a few lines here, a few lines there, and hope for the best. 

That excerpts like this are still being used (quoted), and thought to be useful by those in power may just tell you something about who they believe are still without political power, and how those people should respect their local authorities (mainly, them)...
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 18, 2018, 01:16:38 PM
1-7:  A better question is what does NOT sound like it?  This is strait up, obey the government because God wants you to.

It's more like the conversation a black parent has with their child about interacting with the police.  It could be summarized, here, as be a model citizen, understand that the government is designed (in greater or lesser part) to punish crimes and that is to the benefit of all, don't give it a reason to single you out.  For a subject people this is the inverse message of that which could also have been passed along, you know, disobey the unbelievers in all things for god is on your side and no offense done in his name will be punished.

Believers are always going to believe that ultimately god will vindicate them, this is a directive to let god do that work, rather than rebelling and killing in his name to get there faster.

Quote
This is pure, distilled control.  This is your lot in life.  Not only should you accept it, but you should believe you deserve it, and it’s God’s plan for you to endure it.

In fairness, while I don't you're right, I'm not really in a position to gainsay you.  Maybe just consider that the interpretation of the world is often more complicated than our own part of it and direction to people who are poor in the minority about how to deal with a government they don't control, is probably not the last word on how they should participate in a government in other circumstances.
 
Quote
Translation:  Oh *censored* oh *censored* oh *censored* please don’t rise up and rebel.  There SURE are a lot of you and your belief in an afterlife and your soul being more important than your earthly well being and comfort scares us more than you will ever know.  Or CAN ever know, if we hope to retain power.  Let’s just insert a few lines here, a few lines there, and hope for the best.

Well except again, it was written to a people who were a poor minority that could have become a suppressed minority, not a majority that had the power to overthrow a government.  In any event, even for a majority peace and good citizenship, leading by example, is not some kind of poisonous philosophy.  It's a logical extension of turning the other cheek.  Developing a reputation for being good citizens is a really good philosophy for an evangelical religion as it helps to establish that the members will not be a threat to an autocrat.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 18, 2018, 01:32:06 PM
I agree with pretty much all of that Seriati.  The only caveat is that I think it restates my positions rather than rebuts them...

No long lasting religion is going to be founded on an instruction book which promotes widespread in-caution and rebellion.  After all, what good would that teaching do once any 'victory' was achieved?  They would be prone to actively seek out any reason to overthrow corruption and be predisposed against peaceful contentment.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring on June 18, 2018, 01:46:25 PM
Thanks for the reply, D.W. One thing to keep in mind is what Seriati said about who the Christians were: poor, often oppressed people, and a minority. When reading a passage like this I would suggest removing present-day baggage from the reading and trying to see what is really being said, and to whom. 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. Nor is Paul a stand-in for the powers that be, suggesting that obeying the government is the end-all in life. One thing that can be deceiving here is that Paul wasn't a political philosopher. He didn't write about how to achieve worldly ends or be a good Roman citizen or whatever else. The entire chapter should be viewed within context of a theological framework, so if he's making an argument about a person's relationship to the local government it would be in context of how, more broadly, to be a good Christian.

In particular, a few comments. What you call "window dressing" includes this passage:

Quote
whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The next section, which sounds to you like a threat, contains the following:

Quote
12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Sure, you could read this as a cult "the end is nigh!!!" kind of thing. OR you could read it as the Good News saying that you don't have to wait for salvation until Kingdom Come (the Jewish 'end of days'), which presumably would be very far in the future; 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. But the part I want to highlight is "let us put aside the deeds of darkness." We might well ask what these 'deeds' are; is this a generic way of saying let's not do bad things? But within context of the rest of the chapter I wonder whether he may not have been referring to specific acts of sedition going on at the time to show defiance to Rome. That, I don't know, but in any case if follows from the previous quote that "loving your neighbor" (which includes the Romans) shouldn't involve trying to harm them or undermine them. That's pretty crazy if taken as a strictly political statement, since in theory it would mean giving aid to an oppressive regime. And that's why it has to be seen in the faith context, as Seriati pointed out. The way to fight isn't with swords.

I think a bit of a clue about what he's talking about can be found in the last section:

Quote
13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.

The next portion follows immediately after "deeds of darkness," listing examples of this, and its final clause - we might suggest, the culmination of the point - says not to indulge in dissension and jealousy. These are listed among various physical luxuries such as debauchery and drunkenness. The entire above commentary about respecting local government must, I think, be understood as being in this context, that Paul is asking his fellows to avoid licentious behavior, among which he includes being rebellious. This alone can probably stand an entire treatise to plumb it out, since we could well ask whether the implication is that the reasons why his fellows may have been doing whatever he thinks they've been doing isn't from purity of intent but rather because it made them feel invigorated, or adrenalined up, or whatever else. I've personally known people who thrive on finding things to rebel against or be outraged about. It makes them feel like they've got an enemy to attack, a righteous backing behind their bitterness, and other such reasons.

I suspect that diving deeper into the points being made in Romans 13 are beyond my grasp, but it does seem clear to me that this is an extremely difficult chapter to parse, especially in light of how difficult the message of "swords into plowshares" is in the first place. It's a serious question, how to reconcile the message of Jesus regarding violent resistance (like the zealots) with what one should actually do when confronted by a hostile regime. But It seems to me more or less implausible to suggest that Paul meant for this to say that one must support various regimes (or a particular one) because God says they're great. One needn't support them at all, even while still obeying the laws. The point in the Gospels seems more to be that there are ways to resist the system other than going toe to toe with the police.

ETA - However I can certainly see that passages like these can be taken to mean something fascistic, just like how the Nazis twisted Nietzsche to mean what it certainly didn't. To whatever extent corrupt people use good text to rule I agree with you that we should be cautious about blindly following what others say.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati on June 18, 2018, 01:53:44 PM
I agree with pretty much all of that Seriati.  The only caveat is that I think it restates my positions rather than rebuts them...

I often think the difference between two positions is a matter of charitable versus uncharitable interpretation.

Quote
No long lasting religion is going to be founded on an instruction book which promotes widespread in-caution and rebellion.  After all, what good would that teaching do once any 'victory' was achieved?  They would be prone to actively seek out any reason to overthrow corruption and be predisposed against peaceful contentment.

I disagree here, you're ignoring that a religion can expressly favor its own theocratic government, which rebellion against would be a crime against god, while expressly supporting the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of every other type of secular or religious government.  That same religion, may even specifically provide for deceptive peace living under another government where a rebellion is unlikely to succeed until such time as one would succeed. 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. on June 18, 2018, 02:36:40 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?  This is NOT an ambiguous statement, or one easily modified by “context”.  I’m not sure how present day baggage, vs. the historical context changes that.  I’ll concede that NOT doing so, may have been suicidal, and inclusion could be seen as self preservation as much as outside influence being injected.  Is that what you are suggesting?  If so, I think it’s a decent hypothesis to counter mine.

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.
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).

Our different perspectives revolve around you taking this as a whole, where I view it through a lens of performing the fewest and most unobtrusive edits possible to make the whole more palatable to, and less a threat to the government.  I posit that 1-7 are fraudulent additions or a reinterpretation so significant as to change the meaning. 

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.

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…
Quote
I often think the difference between two positions is a matter of charitable versus uncharitable interpretation.
Amen.

Quote
you're ignoring that a religion can expressly favor its own theocratic government
Teaching obedience is different from a starting position of the oppressed rebelling.  But you do have a point.  Your reference has certainly weathered the test of time as well.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 18, 2018, 03:30:33 PM
Perhaps I am biased by my past experience with the church.

For many every word in the Bible is literal truth and in that light, I can’t see any other way to view it.
What ever Paul’s intention or how charitable one might examine Romans 13 its use is often cited to push back against any questioning of those in charge. 
When I first saw the Sessions press conference the though that cross my mind was how well that scene would work for the defense of the Republic of Gilead.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: NobleHunter 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro 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.


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.


Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 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
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati 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 (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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro 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 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-on-congress-the-curse-of-party-line-voting/#55ec315d6139)

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: (http://)
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.




Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati 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?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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!
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring 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?
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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. 
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: TheDrake 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/10/india.kashmir) 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.

Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: TheDrake 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: D.W. 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...
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: velcro 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.


Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: TheDrake 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?)
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: rightleft22 on June 20, 2018, 03:08:04 PM
In God we trust
Title: Re: Church and State: Using the bible to defend policies
Post by: Mormegil 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.