“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... Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent, fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”Swenson observes:
The passage — “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” — has been read as an unequivocal order for Christians to obey state authority, a reading that not only justified Southern slavery but also authoritarian rule in Nazi Germany and South African apartheid.And what about other things in the New Testament? Stephen Colbert joked darkly:
“Hey, don’t bring God into this. I don’t think God picked you, because I don’t worship Vladimir Putin... Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me.’ But I’m pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words ‘children’ and ‘suffer’ and said, ‘I’m on it.’ ”Swenson collects other pro-immigrant Christian responses
“I guess Sessions forgot about the Gospels part of the Bible. Matthew 25:35 says ‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,’ ” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on Twitter. “Nothing in the Bible says to separate kids from parents. It teaches the opposite.”...Quite aside from what the Bible says, should the Attorney General be using the Bible to defend a government policy? One might answer yes, because the policy was challenged morally, and even though it is theoretically possible to discuss morality without religion and some people can only discuss morality without religion, for many people morality is bound up with religion, and it should be at least permissible to discuss the morality of a public policy in terms of religion. There are consequences to using religion this way, though, of course. It may feel exclusionary to those who don't share the religion or who have a religious problem with interpreting scripture for a political purpose. And if you've got a passage for your position, then I'll have a passage for mine, and I can reinterpret yours and you can reinterpret mine, and we may find ourselves making garbage out of what we were only using in the first place because we posed as believing it was holy.
Theology scholar Mike Frost wrote in 2016 that Romans 13 should not be used to quell dissent because it comes from a period when Christians faced persecution from the Roman Emperor Nero.
“This is the guy who was said to have had Christians dipped in oil and set on fire to light his garden at night,” Frost wrote. “It makes perfect sense that Paul would commend the fledgling church to keep its head down, to avoid rocking the boat, to submit quietly to the prevailing political winds. They had no choice. They lived under the authority of a dictator.”
By the way, we all feel bad for the children, but I'm seeing a spotlight on the point when the children are removed from parents who are being sent to prison. If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead? I'm not seeing anyone talking about that. Am I missing everything that answers my question or are there reasons why no one wants to talk about that?
ADDED: At National Review, Rich Lowry explains the limitation imposed by the Flores Consent Decree (from 1997):
It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
Posts
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251Seem like the on,y solution to this problem is to build a big wall, and make sure that illegal aliens cannot sneak into the USA.
Medicaid, WIC HUD cellphone program, etc.
And you can explain to the US constituents it’s for the children.
Or find the damn money by going after those who take advantage of our system. Time to clear out the rolls of those programs and since charity in this country has now hit $400 BILLION, time to go in, revise the NFP rules with strict recording, and force charities and foundations over a certain amount to make tangible verifiable change in those countries. No Clinton Foundations.
It is clear that the leftists don’t believe a single thing they say.
Not one word about American parents with kids who are sent to jail.
Just a bunch of tools told to be mad about something. Not an original thought in their pathetic heads.
You must take part in a contest for probably the greatest blogs on the web. I will suggest this web site! betfair online casino
You’re a nurse Inga. Time to head south to Mexico because you care.
Althouse has been notably reluctant to weigh in on felons in waiting Manafort and Cohen. Jonathan Turley takes up the challenge.
Mark:
That's some pretty good shit, bra. I like it.
Achilles said...
Not one word about American parents with kids who are sent to jail.
This is nonsense, of course. There are endless articles on how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroys black families. This has been such a high profile issue that Republicans including the president have had to respond.
The solution is emigration reform. The nations of origin need to be called to task for responsibility of their citizens. Immigration reform is a myopic solution and a cover-up. The left-wing "religious" organizations need to stop spreading blood libels against their neighbors and discover a conservation of principles.
n.n: "The solution is emigration reform."
When was the last time a s***hole leftist nation reformed itself?
All these people fleeing all their lefty People's Paradises to come to the Great Satan.
Unexpectedly.
ARM: "There are endless articles on how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroys black families."
Well, don't look to the dems and Hillary.
Remember this one?
"They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."
That was Hillary.
But now, MS-13 is all "Divine Spark-y" and all....
ARM: "This has been such a high profile issue that Republicans including the president have had to respond."
It seems like only yesterday that the dems had complete control of the government with a "Lightbringer" President and 60 votes in the Senate and did.............nothing.
Nothing.
But "nothing" in a very very very good, empathetic, realistic sort of way.
Which is precisely the same nothing you would have if they were non-empathetic and non-realistic.
But the good news is they took lots of peoples healthcare away! (well, at least it led to a Republican landslide).
Good times, good times....
There are endless articles on how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroy black families.
Oh dear.
On the plus side, obama did prioritize giving pardons to completely unrepentant murderous terrorists, so we have that going for us.
There are endless articles on how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroy black families.
Trump and the GOP are gixing that.
That was in the last 2 weeks, why do you think this issue is now a hot topic?
Journalists Smothering that with a blanket.
how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroy black families
A symptom of perpetual smoothing functions including welfare. People need to be productive members of their family and society to mitigate spiritual dysfunction and destruction.
When was the last time a s***hole leftist nation reformed itself?
It can happen through a domino effect. We'll start with our neighbors by geographical proximity. The first step is for them to admit they have a problem.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
Not one word about American parents with kids who are sent to jail.
This is nonsense, of course. There are endless articles on how our ridiculously high rates of incarceration of black men destroys black families. This has been such a high profile issue that Republicans including the president have had to respond.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Signed in 1994.
By Bill Clinton.
You do not believe a single word you say.
Super predators.
Hillary Clinton cheering for Bill Clinton tearing families apart.
Not one word from you.
You do not believe a single word you say.
Jerry Coyne likened this to Auschwitz. He made no such comparison when Obama did it.
If you want to rob a bank, take your kids with you.
Then scream - "you can't arrest me".
"What about the Children????"
People in my family were separated from their children during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
They were drafted - because they were US Citizens.
If only they'd been illegals.
My strong feeling is that Jesus is the only authority who is always right, about everything. All other authorities are way too human and full of sin. So if all you have is the apostle Paul, well, maybe you ought to rethink.
Achilles said...
It is clear that the leftists don’t believe a single thing they say.
Not one word about American parents with kids who are sent to jail.
---
You're an idiot. There are serious programs on the ground where liberal folk are working on this very issue. Maybe _you_ don't know about them; that says more about you than what's out there.
If the separation is wrong, what is the less wrong thing that ought to be done instead?
Craig –
Althouse's question seems quite straightforward, as though it would be easily answerable. What's your answer?
Obviously children are at risk if their parents are criminals. Every illegal immigrant is by definition a criminal as they are breaking the immigration laws of the United States. Therefore they should take their children away.
I however am a humanitarian. I would give the children back their taco bending parents and ship them back to their shit hole countries so they can endanger their children in their own hometown.
Its a win/win.
"As a Christian, I'm going to say no, he shouldn't be quoting Bible verses to justify policies."
Agreed. I think that covers it.
Oh, the part about separating families? - I guess we should never send felonious parents to jail.
Having kids is a "Get Out of Jail Card." Cool!
I need to rob a bank to finance my new house.
Craig said...
Achilles said...
It is clear that the leftists don’t believe a single thing they say.
Not one word about American parents with kids who are sent to jail.
---
You're an idiot. There are serious programs on the ground where liberal folk are working on this very issue. Maybe _you_ don't know about them; that says more about you than what's out there.
Another soulless leftist self identifies.
It is a primary plank of the democrat party to destroy families.
Paul was writing a few years before the Judeans revolted against Roman authority — for the final time.
(Emphasis added.) St. Paul died in about the year 64 or 67 AD. Thus you must be talking about the “Great Revolt” in Judea, also known as the “First Roman-Jewish War,” taking place during the years 66-73 AD.
There's a reason, however, it's called the First Roman-Jewish War — and that's because there were at least three more of them after that. First (i.e., second), there was the “Revolt of the Diaspora” or Tumultus Iudaicus (during 115-117 AD) which mainly involved anti-Roman revolts among the sizable Jewish diaspora residing in Cyrene (what's now NE Libya), Alexandria (Egypt), and the island of Cyprus. Reportedly almost half a million (Greek-speaking) “Romans” were massacred by Jewish rebels in those places, plus the Jewish communities there subsequently being annihilated.
Secondly (thirdly), there was the enormous effort of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judea, which occurred during the years 132-136 AD. (More than half a million Jews killed, three Roman legions destroyed.)
Beyond that, there was also a fourth Roman-Jewish War in the revolt by the Jews of Galilee (that being about the only region still considerably populated by Jews in “Palestine”) in AD 351.
There was also a Jewish revolt (in Palestine and Phoenicia) during the Sassanian Persian invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire during their all-out war of 603-628 AD — whose Jewish role begin in 614.
One might note that after the foregoing Roman-Jewish Wars, Jews and Judaism were almost extinct across the former Judea — whereupon that off-Jewish sect the Samaritans went into a golden age where they dominated the region (within the aegis of Rome). However, in the aftermath of the earlier-mentioned Galilean Jewish revolt of 351, the Samaritans of Samaria and “Judea” also went into a period of severe repression by the now-Christian Romans — after which there eventually were several Samaritan revolts: in 484, again in 495, and finally, an extended effort to win their independence from Rome, the Ben Sabor revolt of 529-531. All were crushed, after which the Samaritans joined the Jews in afterwards being nearly extinct in their own homelands.
There are two issues, the Bible issue and the immigration issue. On the immigration issue, I have no wisdom, except to say it must be far more complex than anything being portrayed in the news media, where it looks like a simple good vs. evil morality tale. Real life is always a complicated thing. On the Bible issue, I read the Bible daily, but I always cringe when anyone quotes it in support of a political position. The Bible can be made to support most anything. Also, using the Bible to justify a political policy in the U.S. seems to me to violate the disestablishment of religion in the Constitution.
Just abort them? now libs will be satisfied. sarc off.
Also, using the Bible to justify a political policy in the U.S. seems to me to violate the disestablishment of religion in the Constitution.
I also believe in the separation of church and state, more for church's sake than for state's.
Michael McNeil, you seem to be saying that, in the first several centuries AD, the Jews were revolting. ;-)
RE the Bible verses thing - but the opponents were using religion to say that this policy (basically forced by the courts, and certainly happening under Obama) is flat wrong.
With religion, either no one can talk about it or anyone can, but it is an unworkable rule to allow people to use religion on one side and not allow those who disagree to use religion to rebut their argument.
The rule for public life should be: don't start it, but do rebut it. I am not going to critique the Pope, for example, for making religious arguments about these issues. That is his job. There is no freedom of religion or thought if religious concepts (or moral concepts) cannot be discussed in public. People have the right to aspirations for better human relationships, and the right to discuss why they think such and such should be done. I do not find any real distinction between Kennedy's cri de coeur in Obergefell with all its talk about dignity and the Pope's appeals over immigration. Both rest on axioms, and are highly interpretative, and necessarily so.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death."
That is not a legal argument, in any way, shape or form.
In the current instance the argument about the children is being made because it tugs at our heartstrings, and because if we allow the emotions sway over policy we will have a policy of open immigration, flat and simple. Just come over the border with someone who can pass as being underage, and you are free to roam.
And, as has happened before, should this appeal to emotion succeed, some children will be separated from their families to be used by those who wish to enter the country, and have no children of their own.
I do condemn those who make such arguments and fail to distinguish between causation and reaction. It is those who come over the border who cause the separation of their children from themselves, just as it is the man or woman who drives drunk for the fifth time who causes his or her separation from his or her children due to the inevitable jail term.
CR, Mockturtle, etc - I am assuming you are not Catholic, because Catholics are getting the religious dictate on this (open immigration) shoved down their throats from the pulpit every week. Nor is this just happening in the confines of churches.
Why is NPR citing all the "faith leaders" who oppose this policy?
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/16/620651574/faith-leaders-oppose-trumps-immigration-policy-of-separating-children-from-paren
To say that Sessions or any other political figure cannot argue the question on their terms is ridiculous, in my opinion. You are advocating a position that would muzzle open political discussion in favor of the opposition.
Either you support censoring religious people from speaking on political questions in the framework of their own religious principles, or you must concede that political leaders will sometimes have to discuss those arguments as presented. Make up your minds, but don't expect me to adopt any written or unwritten rule which censors speech to such an extent, and even worse, which would advance the position of religiosity in politics.
I don't like it (public leaders having to address religious axioms) and it makes me uncomfortable, but every alternative is worse. If you allow religious objections/mandates/positions to become unrebuttable in politics, you will spawn the most extreme sorts of religiosity in public life. Surely you MUST be able to see that.
With Ann Althouse's love of words and with her articulate commentatoriat, I'm surprised that no one has utilized the new word we have for this dialog, jesus-splaining (analogous to mansplaining).
Spelling of jesus-splaining varies, but I think it is more readable with the dash.
Is "commentatoriat" is more euphonious than the plausible alternative word "commentatori"? Both vastly superior to the proletarian "commentators".
Nota bene: "commentatoriat" is distinct from the opprobrious "commentatorat"
Why are they "ridiculously high" rates of incarceration, ARM? Are you saying the incarcerated have been framed? Could be, I suppose; and even if legally justified, I wouldn't convict anyone for violating gun laws unless the perps were using the guns in an aggressive manner. (You know, the way "liberal" statists do.) Neither would I convict anyone for using some substance that the State has declared verboten, since our bodies are our own. So absenting convictions for evil and stupid gun- and drug-laws (that also apply to Whites as well as Blacks), would the rate of incarceration still be "ridiculously" high? If so, why?
I ask because there was a candidate here last year who, in the last week of his campaign, flooded the district with flyers promising, if elected, to fight "ridiculously high" rates of incarceration among Blacks. It was a blatant attempt to garner more votes in the 'hood, and he lost anyway; but the flyer seemed to just assume those convictions were unjust. That candidate was a notorious BS artist, as (my impression is) are you; but maybe this one time, like the proverbial stopped clock, you're correct. What evidence can you present?
MOM, you are right, I am not a Catholic. Here in AZ the Catholic Church was, at least until recently, actively engaged in helping illegal immigrants cross the border and find safe haven. If I were cynical I'd think they were just eager to increase the size of their parishes.
Not just in Arizona but in WA the Seattle Diocese built numerous apartment complexes to house illegals. The complexes were even given Mexican names. So in my judgment the RCC is every bit as guilty as employers who hire the illegals.
Also, using the Bible to justify a political policy in the U.S. seems to me to violate the disestablishment of religion in the Constitution.
The First Amendment prevents the government from telling you what you have to believe, not about you telling the government what you do believe. It is perfectly Constitutionally acceptable to base your political views on your religion.
History helps. The USCC was created by Abp. (later Cardinal) Joey Bernardin and to this day the USCC throws a lot of money at Industrial Areas Foundation--the Alinsky bunch. That's because Bernardin's SJW chief in Chicago--Mgr. Ryan--was a devout disciple of Alinsky. USCC's employees are uniformly hard-Leftist, proof-texting the Bible for their own justification.
It's the Catholic version of "swamp."
If I were cynical I'd think they were just eager to increase the size of their parishes.
6/16/18, 10:33 PM
I am Catholic, and unfortunately, mockturtle, I think that is indeed the case.
Wow. So this segregationist asshole quotes the Bible in a general way that ordains whatever his government wants to do as a good and necessary thing for the American sheeple to follow -- and you don't have a critical thing to say about it. What a bottom-of-the-barrell scraping. This government should be dismissed and disregarded just on general principle alone, and so should any fool who can't be bothered to point out how beyond the pale it is.
They're not using the bible (which our secular founded country doesn't follow) to justify a specific policy. They're using the bible to justify any policy they want, based on the fact that the stupid quotation says to just do whatever the government asks.
Yep. That's a government that really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I forgot what great followers Paul and Jesus were of state authority.
Fuck any moron whose brains are so battered as to have found any sense in that completely inane reference, let alone how Segregation Sessions sought to use it and what he justified it for. These people aren't fit to live here and should go try to re-constitute the Holy Roman Empire elsewhere. Fuck off with them.
"It is perfectly Constitutionally acceptable to base your political views on your religion."
I agree. People can base their political views on whatever they want.
But I don't believe that Congress should pass laws based on religious texts or religious principles. Yet I often hear religious leaders tell the government, "You must do such and such because my sacred text says so."
It's Biblical justification for separation of church and state. As an atheist, I applaud it.
"It is perfectly Constitutionally acceptable to base your political views on your religion."
Whether it's practical to do so is another matter - assuming you want policies that can be upheld as constitutional.
Ritmo: These people aren't fit to live here
Your mother should've strangled you at birth and spared the world your putrid existence.
Post a Comment