Religion
Related: About this forumSo, Now We Have the Attorney General Violating
the First Amendment and quoting the Bible as justification for kidnapping and incarcerating children of migrants.
This is what it has come to. This is what a theonomy looks like.
Where is the outrage from the Christian community for such a misuse of the Bible and such a break from America's founding principles? Where are the comments from theists and other Christians in this Religion Group?
It what Sessions said alright with you all? Is it OK for our government to justify such things by quoting a verse from Romans?
Feh! That's what I say.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,032 posts)because he is the head of the DoJ. Ive read a number of outraged comments from clergy, but not the evangelicals, of course.
MineralMan
(146,358 posts)My mistake.
shraby
(21,946 posts)Haven't heard the talking heads pick up on that yet, most have been criticizing the use of the quote from the bible in relationship to what he was trying to say it said, not that it was totally and terribly wrong in relationship to the constitution.
MineralMan
(146,358 posts)We're rapidly moving toward a right-wing Christian theonomy. We'd better pay attention. If we don't insist on our rights, we won't have them pretty soon. Where are the Christian leaders? Why are they silent about this outrageous thing?
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)violation. Politicians reference the bible a lot.
MineralMan
(146,358 posts)is precisely a violation of the First Amendment.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)It is hard for me to see how that violates the religion establishment clause.
Please note I think what they are doing to families seeking asylum is horrendous.
shraby
(21,946 posts)Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)in, for example, state of the union speeches?
shraby
(21,946 posts)I don't remember hearing the bible used as an excuse for policy.
Igel
(35,393 posts)It's why the policy isn't contrary to scripture--which was the argument he was countering, and since it was a religious argument made *against* him/the policy and the argument was made in a religious setting, it was religious. Don't see a problem. Answer a fool according to his folly.
At the same time, it cannot be a first amendment issue:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Not Congress.
Not a law being made. Not even a regulation being promulgated. No justification of the policy itself. Just that God says to obey the laws. I suppose because the word "God" is in the sentence it's a trigger for some.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)which is that the policy is abhorrent. Instead of focusing on the policy, Sessions, coached no doubt by the spin doctors, has reframed the issue as Gods Only Party doing Gods work, and we have taken the bait.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)George Bush state of the union, a phrase that has specific theological meaning with evangelicals.
Here is an interesting read on the subject: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/invoking.html
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)MineralMan
(146,358 posts)Instead, all we get is silence. I guess nobody's concerned about this. I'm thoroughly pissed off, but I'm an atheist, so nobody is interested in my concern.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Not so sure about the misuse part. We're talking about a book that fully endorses slavery.
MineralMan
(146,358 posts)There are plenty of verses that make it clear than harming children is a bad thing. He chose a passage that says we must do whatever the government says.
The real problem is his use of the Bible at all in discussing laws and treatment of migrants. We are not a Bible-based nation. That's the outrageous offense.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)After all, it's a beautiful thing to hit a child, just not on the face.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There are also passages instructing parents to kill disobedient children. Following one set of rules necessarily excludes the other, and whichever one chooses to follow invariably boils down to one's personal preference.
But that's neither here nor there. We both agree the real problem here is a high-ranking US official citing the mad ramblings of bronze age shepherds as pretext for civil law is a huge step in the wrong direction, no matter what that law might be.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)What he said about the law is played back to him before his sentencing from the judge.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And moving on. Turn the other cheek!
The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)It makes me ill that morally bankrupt people are treating children inhumanely. It makes me ill that they are injecting their religion into their legal rationale for said shocking acts. And, scores of Christians think it is just ginger peachy to do both. The law of this country is the constitution, not the Bible.
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,011 posts)But no Republican will care.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)There are plenty of Bible verses that directly or indirectly promote the practice of slavery specifically, and don't rely on some vague admonition to obey the local authorities and laws.
The fine Christians who are in favor of this have probably convinced themselves that the parents are evil and that the kids are better off away from them.
gibraltar72
(7,522 posts)I am utterly amazed they haven't made an effort to salvage their brand. Perhaps there are so few that they are afraid to speak out. As a recovering evangelical I am stunned that efforts are so feeble.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems.