Susan Jacoby always writes good stuff about this issue. Look up her numerous articles online or her books for well-written analyses of religion-secularism issues

One of her points here: when Jeff Sessions used Romans to justify separating migrant families, he was chastised for using the wrong verses of the Bible. However, why should he use the Bible at all?

IMO, if Sessions had quoted the Koran to justify his actions, the so-called Christians would have had a melt-down of, um, Biblical proportions. Sharia Law, I tell you!!!!!! Off with his head!

"Religious Freedom" often seems to translate into "freedom for me to shove my religion down your throat", and not much else.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/opinion/sunday/church-state-supreme-court-religion.html

In Europe libertarians are generally on the left and conservatives on the right. Conservatives are those who prefer traditional values and want the state to stop, or reverse, the extension of new freedoms to new groups of people. Their rallying cry is back to the halcyon days of yore.

The United States has long been an outlier, with libertarians on the right. For many decades there was an uneasy tension in the GOP between European-style conservatives, on the one hand, who wanted to reverse what liberals term "progress" and return to an earlier age and earlier values; and, on the other, libertarians who resisted the extension of state power against individuals.

Over the last decade we have seen the gradual takeover of the GOP by pro-state conservatives and the exile of libertarians. The Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, the Trump campaign: these are people who trumpet state intervention in moral matters and the diminution of individual autonomy in the face of state power. In Congress we have in the last couple of years seen the exit of most of the individual-rights Republicans, so too in the punditry, as advocates of personal liberty resign, or distance themselves from, a party that has grown increasingly interventionist.

Gone forever are the Barry Goldwaters, the John McCains, the other skeptics of government. The new interventionism that Jacoby decries is thus based in an underlying conquest of the GOP by those who want to use state power to impose their values on society regardless of the cost to the individual.

This makes sense in two regards. First, the alliance between libertarians and conservatives was always awkward and the realignment of American politics in accordance with the pattern in Europe and elsewhere is logical. On the other, individual liberty is irrational if one believes that there is a transcendent morality that dictates how society should be organized. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young surely taught that, and today's manifestations of the same statist logic are Sessions and Pence and their allies. God has told them how things should be, and they intend to use state power to achieve it.

But as is evident all around the world, when those with a normative view of reality--be it Islam or Christianity or Marxism--control the levers of government, individual liberties diminish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2018 05:49PM by Lot's Wife.

Interesting article. Thanks.


Like you said, can you imagine if politicians referenced another religion in their roles like they do Christianity? Most Christians would be outraged.

I'm coming to fear it is intentional and OK with many Christians to put Christianity into everything and not allow for other religion or secular views.

This seems like manipulation of Christians in a way. It seems that anti-intellectualism can be part of empowering religion and state alliance. Keeping the masses undereducated and going to church enable political power. (I'm King now, but you'll get rewarded in an afterlife.)

It seems many have a willingness to be unfair hypocrites by taking away personal liberty from others.

It only works when there is a strong majority of Christians who can shut out other views. They must be willing to risk what would happen to them should the government that uses them ever fall from power.

What can we do when their view of religion means that OTHERS must follow their religion?

Lot's Wife, thanks for your comments about libertarians. There was a time many years ago when I considered myself a libertarian, mostly because I was all about gaining wealth and didn't care about human rights or the poor. This put me on the right of the political spectrum. Now I look back at how selfish my views were. I am interested to learn more about views of libertarians on the left.

When I look at Pruitt and DeVos (since they were mentioned in the article), it seems clear that their priority was religion and not anything to do with the departments they led. It is not OK for their religion to substitute for actual knowledge on the job.

I know many Christians would not agree with these views. The question is if they are in fact helping tear down the wall by supporting Christian advances.

Doubtful that Sessions quoting one Bible verse incorrectly would seriously tear at our concept of separation of church and state.

But I agree with you,the quote was unnecessary.

What he SHOULD have pointed out is that it is not a good idea to enter our borders illegally, with or without children.
Such actions have consequences.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doubtful that Sessions quoting one Bible verse
> incorrectly would seriously tear at our concept of
> separation of church and state.

Disagree. Suggesting that the government's actions are motivated by and supported by the god of the bible does exactly that.

> What he SHOULD have pointed out is that it is not
> a good idea to enter our borders illegally, with
> or without children.
> Such actions have consequences.

Right, 'cause nobody already knows that...but, hey, if the god of the bible says the consequences we impose are okey-dokey, then they're extra-specially valid!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2018 01:06PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Well, if they already know that why do they try to keep coming in illegally?

And btw, the god of the bible has nothing to do with our borders.

We, the people, make the rules in our country.
And we, the people, do enforce our borders.

We the people also have a constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Is separation of parents from children, done for the purpose of deterring immigration by intimidation, and not because the parents and children together pose a public threat, cruel and unusual punishment?

That's a totally legitimate question.

Crossing the border illegally, in most cases, is a misdemeanor. Shipping your children to god knows where without even a system in place to track them seems cruel and unusual under the circumstances. Also seems incompetent, but that unfortunately is not illegal.

Speaking of illegal, most of these families that were separated were seeking asylum, which is legal, and they are entitled to due process. Fourteenth Amendment due process right applies to all persons, not just citizens. These people are fully within the law. They haven't even committed a misdemeanor. So what right does the government have to separate them from their children?

The judge who ordered the children reunited with their parents certainly felt the government was out of line.

That whole rule of law thing also applies to the government. That's something the Attorney General neglected to consider when he tried to weaponize scripture.

Most drunk driving arrests are also misdemeanors. And virtually every one results in the offender being jailed and therefore necessarily separated from all their family members, including children. The logistics of this purely natural consequence are magnified when the offense is illegally entering a sovereign nation. Try doing this in Mexico.

There is a legal way to apply for asylum that does not involve illegally entering the US first. In fact, illegally entering the US prior to applying for asylum negatively impacts your chances for successfully being granted asylum. We have an embassy and numerous consulates spread across Mexico where anyone may legally apply for asylum with absolutely no risk of arrest or familial separation.

Claiming asylum has unfortunately become a common "get out of jail free card" for many who are apprehended after entering illegally. Sadly, they are clogging our asylum system with claims that are mostly found to be false, and are making the process infinitely harder for those who are in legitimate need of asylum.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chances-winning-grant-asylum.html

As I understand it, you cannot apply for asylum (or perhaps it is refugee status) from within your own country. I know that is true for refugees. They have to have left their country to be considered refugees under international law.

I was going to renew my visa to Canada when I was living there. I had all the paperwork, and stopped at the border crossing into the US and walked into the building to renew the visa. They told me I came through the wrong door. I came in on the Canadian side of the building, so I was still technically in Canada, and could not renew the visa while in Canada. When I returned from the US the next day, I could enter the building through the door on the other side, and renew the visa.

We both laughed at the situation, but he was not kidding. The entire building was in Canada, but I had to use the other door. There wasn't even a barrier between the doors. I probably would have been noticed walking across the grass.

Asylum seekers have not crossed the border illegally once the request asylum. Is that a dodge. Sure, sometimes, maybe even often. Putting children in separate detention is not an appropriate way to stop it. Or so it seems.



This is sort of off topic from the point of the article I posted.

Perhaps Mr Sessions was trying to shore up conservative Christian support. Even some of them felt the child separation policy was beyond the pale.

The article brought up other examples as well. The Romans quote was the easiest one for me to remember.

It is not illegal to come to the United States and then seek asylum. The law, which Beth quoted several weeks ago, states that once a person is here, regardless of how she got here, she has a right to an asylum hearing. Why? Because sometimes a person cannot safely apply for asylum from abroad.

If the asylum court finds that the applicant does not qualify for asylum, she then goes through the normal immigration procedure and can then be penalized for having entered illegally. That is the point of TMSH's Nolo link. But the point is that in the case of asylum seekers, unapproved entry is not illegal.

As for TMSH's assertions that asylum seekers are clogging the asylum system and that most such applications are found to be false, I'd benefit from some documentation.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most drunk driving arrests are also misdemeanors.
> And virtually every one results in the offender
> being jailed...

Not really.
Virtually every one results in an arrest.
For a first offense (and often for a second or third), reasonable bail is available immediately, and suspects are often released on their own recognizance (promise to appear) after being processed.

That is what USED to be the case with the misdemeanor offense of crossing a border illegally. The "new policy" is that no bail is set, and no OR release is available.

So it's not the same. It's being treated differently from other misdemeanors, it's being done in a way NOT required by the law, and it's being done inhumanely.

Not only that, but those seeking asylum used to routinely be released OR -- and over 95% of asylum seekers made their court appearances. Asylum seekers have committed NO crime whatsoever, not even a misdemeanor, yet they are now being held in custody until a hearing (or being denied a hearing and simply deported, often in violation of international treaties we've signed).

So, nice try, but...no.

Again, as Beth showed when she cited the relevant law, asylum seekers have a legal right to remain in the country until their case is adjudicated no matter how they arrived. Deporting them before that hearing is illegal.

The fact that those people were deprived of that right without due process raises the 14th amendment question just as surely as the separation of children from their misdemeanor parents does does the 8th amendment one.

The administration has considerable leeway regarding how to enforce a particular law, but in the area of immigration it has been making up law as it goes. It will take the courts a long, long time to sort this stuff out.

There are definitely 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) and 14th Amendment (due process) issues here. The courts will be busy sorting those out for years to come.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if they already know that why do they try to
> keep coming in illegally?

Lots of reasons, often because they have no prospect of ever living anything other than a life of poverty, despair, abuse, and sickness in their own countries. So it's worth the risk.

> And btw, the god of the bible has nothing to do
> with our borders.

Jeff Sessions thinks it does. Which is the very problem we're talking about in this thread.

> We, the people, make the rules in our country.
> And we, the people, do enforce our borders.

"We, the people" until recently took a human approach to enforcing our borders, and didn't have government officials making statements saying god approved of an inhumane approach. That's all changed -- and it wasn't "We, the people" who changed. It was the government officials.

Sessions speech was specifically addressing criticism from some in the religious community to the administration's immigration policy. He was not invoking the Bible as authority for policy, but was showing there is biblical support for the policy. There's no problem with this. Many laws and government policies can be shown to conform with biblical teachings, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Obama did the exact same thing repeatedly citing Joseph and Mary, and other biblical allusions to support his immigration policies. Obama also cited the Koran to support some of his policies: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barack-obama-2009-cairo-speech-in-full-us-relations-muslim-world-islam-us-president-middle-east-a-a7521851.html

Unless you can specifically cite some exclusively religious edict that is incorporated into law or policy, this is a tempest in a teapot. There's nothing wrong with politicians demonstrating their policies are aligned with the specific interests of any community, be it religious or secular. Politics is about gaining consensus and support, and that will sometimes include religious people.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/20/we-were-strangers-once-too-president-announces-new-steps-immigratio

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sessions speech was specifically addressing
> criticism from some in the religious community to
> the administration's immigration policy. He was
> not invoking the Bible as authority for policy,
> but was showing there is biblical support for the
> policy.

Isn't it interesting, though, that the vast majority of the "religious community" in the US informed him that he was wrong, and that there ISN'T "biblical support" for the policy? After all, he simply quoted a verse that tells people to "obey the laws of the government." When churches have for much of our history been at the forefront of groups who refuse to obey what they consider to be "unjust" laws -- such as segregation, unreasonable separation of immigrant families, etc.

Essentially, he was telling everyone that the bible says to shut up and obey the law. When the law doesn't even require the policies the administration were being criticized for. It was an attempt to raise himself above criticism -- not a even a thoughtful attempt to apply his supposed belief in the "gospel of Jesus." It was using the bible to get critics to shut up and leave him alone. And it didn't work. Even among the religious.

I don't think the invocation was aimed at the "religious." It was aimed at the subset of religious people who have thrown their lot in with Trump.

Administration policy is largely as series of dog whistles, each of which is tuned to the frequency that the president's supporters favor. The rest of the country is appalled, but that doesn't matter.

The goal is to keep the supporters on side, and it has largely worked.

I think of more concern right now is the seeming WH assault on a free press and established law and order institutions and intelligence gathering services.

It's all of a piece, kentish. The administration is tearing down what it terms "the deep state" but what the framers called "the constitution."

Free press and free religion are the same amendment to the Constitution. The destruction of the legal infrastructure and intelligence services are an assault on Article Two and Article Three.

There have been other times in history when demagogic waves swept across polities. In such cases all governmental institutions erode simultaneously.

Terms and references that relate to their followers supporters cultural milieu, based on the action generated a catch 22 where by the behavior cited could in some pretexts or details appear to contradict major tenants of followers faith cultural dialogue

So the guy superseded it with a pattern cited from followers belief matrix?
Btw I have never seen scarier criticisms and reproaches than in a womens bible study they thought reproaching called believers into line was righteousness, a virtue. Not nice tribe it was as if they were used to sweeping the floor with other peoples behaviors grooming them publically through aversion. Confusing to a former mo who thought all Christians were nice , ie nice to each other.

The politician is announcing to a Christian base that its godly to support their political point and this is another thing to publically chastise guiltlessly in self or others ...like the ladies in the womens bible study. It's like a box of things to reverse and with hold your polite loving behavior about and get virtue points for criticizing predating as tracking bring hostile toward argumentation e. It's like these folks organize debate points verbal criticism points in their belief structure, despite some states beliefs to judge n oi t lest ye be judged or love one another.

Possibly this guy was announcing that his behavior advocated was a form of Christian love. Who knew.

Unconditional positive regard? NOT. /THATS the thing that gets me ....

Oh btw what was the politicians name and what were they referring to anyways? I'm only interested in dogmatic persuasive rhetoric linguistic skills that were utilized to lift a core belief meme off a set of actions and relabeled it for a group of believers, enablingor enticing them to do things that formerly contradicted parts of their beliefs relabeling it as a belief supported construct.

So who was the politician again
?

Paintingnotloggedin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So who was the politician again
> ?

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Attorney General of the United States of America.

That's THE THIRD to you. III.

That name suits him, bless his heart.

LOL. I see you have learned to speak fluent Southern.

I reckon I have.

(Clutching my pearls)

Last night I saw Church and State, at the Broadway in SLC. It is a documentary about the successful fight to legalize same-sex marriage in the US. I think it is one of life's ultimate ironies that it was a Utah case that legalized gay marriage in the US. If there is a god, she has a wicked sense of humor.

RFM followed the whole saga pretty closely (in fact, the is probably a dramatic understatement), so if you have been reading here for 5 or more years, you should be familiar with more detail than was in the movie. The director/screenwriters were forced to pick and chose because of time constraints.

One of the problems for the opponents of marriage expansion was the difficulty in making a coherent argument that wasn't religion based. The best they could do was to make it totally about protecting children, with "this is going to damage marriage" as a side dish.

At the local level, Judge Shelby asked the opponents to show exactly how marriage would be damaged. They of course couldn't, because that had been a phony rationale from the get-go. The fight was not about protecting marriage, it was about denying social acceptance of same-sex families. They didn't want anything that made it easier to be homosexual.

Long story short, Judge Shelby ruled that the government had not demonstrated a compelling reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples, and based on the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, he ruled they could marry.

There was a group of us who went to see the movie, and had a discussion afterwards (Unitarians, what else?). One of the participants is not a minister, but was licensed in Utah to perform marriages and she was part of the happy pandemonium at the SL County offices. That whole story deserves a separate thread, so story for another day.

At the appeal of the case to the Tenth Circuit, again, the fact that the opposition could not make a religious case for opposing the decision because of that pesky First Amendment severely hampered what they could argue. their objections, fundamentally were religious, but they couldn't present those arguments.

The Tenth Circuit upheld Shelby. The SC upheld the Tenth Circuit. Kitchen v. Herbert became the law of the land.

This was not in the movie, but I remember it happening. The Utah legislature wanted to file an amicus brief with the SCOTUS. They decided that the AG office was not up to the task, and they paid $2 million to an outside (Idaho?) law firm to write the brief. It was a rehash of The Children! and The Damage to Marriage!

When the SC decision came down, as far as I am aware, none of the opinions, neither concurring nor dissenting, quoted word one from the Utah brief. The SC saw it as basically a states rights versus 14th Amendment case, and they ignored all the blather from Utah.

Politically, politicians can get away with a certain amount of Bible thumping. Not that they should, but yes, the USAG got away with quoting Romans. But in an actual court of law, that doesn't fly as the basis for an argument. Alabama SC Justice Roy Moore disagreed with that, and got his ass fired twice by federal judges.

Attempts to insert religion into our legal system is an ongoing source of tension. The First Amendment has held up rather well, all considered, but it is constantly being chipped at, which was Ms Jacoby's point.

[edit: Derek Kitchen, whose name is on the lawsuit, just won the Dem primary to run for Utah State Senate, from the district I live in. He will almost certainly win]

[edit 2: Kitchen v. Herbert wasn't the SC case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The SC let the Tenth Circuit decision stand, but chose not to take the appeal of the case, so gay marriage was legal in the Tenth Circuit. The SC ruled on marriage expansion in Obergefell v. Hodges, about six months later.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2018 10:01PM by Brother Of Jerry.