• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sessions quotes bible to justify separating children from immigrants.

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I am familiar with the verse he used. The question is wouldn't this same verse tell Christians not to protest at Planned Parenthood sites since the actions of the clinic have been found to be legal by our God appointed government?

It could be used to support any action by any government if simply plucked out and given context in a self serving manner.

But I guess some will be happy to hear government quoting the Bible regardless of the intent.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Sessions cites Bible to defend immigration policies resulting in family separations - CNNPolitics

That's like quoting Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham" to justify feeding school children spoiled food.

Quite apart from the fact that he shouldn't, ideally, be invoking particular religious concepts in a secular debate, the subsequent paragraphs of your quoted article spell out what Catholics would view as an authentic biblical approach to this issue:


The Catholic Church and other religious leaders have voiced strong criticism of policies resulting in family separations and recent moves Sessions has made to restrict asylum.

On Wednesday, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the administration, declaring that separating mothers and children at the US border is "immoral."

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the president of the organization, said in a statement, "Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.
"​
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
This is why the Bible is such a wonderful book. It can be used to justify anything. Just be glad he didn’t cite Psalms 137:9.

Which is why I personally think its more advisable to belong to a church tracing its roots back to the earliest centuries, that has a magisterium (i.e. pope, bishops, ecumenical councils) tasked with interpreting the sacred texts in conjunction with a coherent, developing extra-biblical sacred tradition mediated through the early church fathers, later theologians etc. that is accorded equal authority as a source of divine revelation...as with Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

We have firm interpretations from an official source. Not a free-for-all believe-what-you-fancy approach.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The law was made to serve man, not man the law. It is intended to help.
In situations where application of the law is harmful, it should not be applied.

Sessions seems to equate morality with strict adherence to rules, regardless of outcome.

Had he lived in Amsterdam in the '40s, would he have obeyed the law and turned in the Frank family?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The law was made to serve man, not man the law. In situations where application of the law is harmful, it should not be applied.

I like your paraphrasing of Jesus!

Of course, that's how he actually did approach it. And if such logic applies to supposedly divine, Torah law then even more so would it to merely human, positive law. Human welfare and dignity is what counts.

As Jesus responded:

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mk 2:23-28; Mt 12:1-8)

In the grand scheme of things what is more important: that someone obediently abides by the bare minutiae and letter of an ancient religious prohibition, originally designed to give people "a day of sabbath rest" (Leviticus 23:3) from hard work, or let poor people faint or even perish from lack of food because of it?

Clearly, the commandment had become abused by the religious authorities to imply that Galilean peasants about to faint from hunger after days wandering with few possessions on the road, were not to be permitted to satiate their own bodily needs for survival. Reality check but itinerant people without home or any great personal belongings doing what they need to do to survive, should not be considered "work". If you don't have daily or weekly wages or a house to store food, the same logic applied to Jewish householders simply cannot apply in your extenuating case.

It's easy for the religious leaders in question, sitting in their homes and synagogues with food already prepared in advance for consumption on the sabbath and so with no need to derive their means of sustenance with the sweat of their own hands, to preach to Jesus's wandering band of mendicant-like followers.

It was for inequitable situations like this, that English Common Law developed the concept (derived from the Christian natural law tradition) of claimants being able to receive redress under equity (the "conscience of the king or court") if the law failed them, as the judgement in the Earl of Oxford's Case (1615) explained: “The cause why there is a chancery [for equity] is, for that men’s actions are so diverse and infinite, that it is impossible to make any general law which may aptly meet with every particular act and not fail in the circumstances, The office of the chancellor is to [...] soften and mollify the extremity of the law.”

Jesus, in this example, made an appeal to conscience and equity on behalf of the extenuating circumstance of his disciples' itinerant way of life, because if applied "generally" the Sabbath moral law would fail to accommodate their "particular" situation. He thus intended to "soften and mollify the extremity of [a far too strict interpretation] of the law".
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Jeez that is some circular reasoning. You can make any law but it’s cool cause the Bible says obey whatever the gubment does. He should quote the verses that say not be be a jerk.

I'd always heard that 'jerk' was a mistranslation in the King James, and a better match to the original Biblical Hebrew was 'assclown'.

Granted, some scholars would argue that jerk is more consistent across both Hebrew and Aramaic, but still....

Ahem.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I am familiar with the verse he used. The question is wouldn't this same verse tell Christians not to protest at Planned Parenthood sites since the actions of the clinic have been found to be legal by our God appointed government?
Hey! Stop applying their own arguments to them! You KNOW that's not how this works! Only sanctimonious moralists are allowed to use the Bible to justify their actions, you can't go around applying their standard equally! What are ya, some sort of commie??!
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Hey! Stop applying their own arguments to them! You KNOW that's not how this works! Only sanctimonious moralists are allowed to use the Bible to justify their actions, you can't go around applying their standard equally! What are ya, some sort of commie??!

Heh...I do commonly reach the point of being sorry for consistent and considered theists. This stuff (referenced by the OP) must drive them SPARE.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Had he lived in Amsterdam in the '40s, would he have obeyed the law and turned in the Frank family?
Is this a trick question?

Given Session's enthusiastic investment in private prisons, I imagine he'd have offered to drive the Franks to Treblinka himself if he thought he could submit an invoice.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1867):


The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”:

Among this set of grave social sins in our sacred tradition is "The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan", the OT biblical references for which is commonly given as:


Exodus 22:21–24

21 “Do not mistreat a foreigner or oppress him, for you were foreigners in Egypt. 22 “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24My anger will be aroused

And the NT reference, of course, being Luke's Parable of the Good Samaritan:


Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

— Luke 10:30–37, World English Bible

A nice summation of Catholic doctrine on this was made by Pope Pius XII in 1952:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm


EXSUL FAMILIA NAZARETHANA

Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, dated August 1, 1952.

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.

And also:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/corunum/documents/rc_pc_corunum_doc_25061992_refugees_en.html


PONTIFICAL COUNCIL
FOR THE PASTORAL CARE OF MIGRANTS AND ITINERANT PEOPLE

REFUGEES: A CHALLENGE TO SOLIDARITY

PRESENTATION

1992

“A shameful wound of our time”

From this some key points:

"…(1) Protection of refugees is a duty and responsibility for the Christian

Protection is not a simple concession made to the refugee: he is not an object of assistance, but rather a subject of rights and duties. Each country has the responsibility to respect the rights of refugees and assure that they are respected as much as the rights of its own citizens…Any person in danger who appears at a frontier has a right to protection. Indifference constitutes a sin of omission.

(2) The immediate needs of the refugee transcends the interests of the State and even national security in deference to the dignity of the refugee as a human person:

The problem of refugees must be confronted at its roots, that is, at the level of the very causes of exile. The first point of reference should not be the interests of the State, or national security but the human person, so that the need to live in community, a basic requirement of the very nature of human beings, will be safeguarded…While moments of economic recession can make the imposition of certain limits on reception understandable, respect for the fundamental right of asylum can never be denied when life is seriously threatened in one’s homeland…"

(3) National interest should not be the overriding concern:

Despite an increased awareness of interdependence among peoples and nations, some States, guided by their own ideologies and particular interests, arbitrarily determine the criteria for the application of international obligations

However, numerous people within various nations are taking firm position against selfish attitudes and the adoption of policies of restrictionism, and who are committed to sensitizing public opinion in favor of the protection of the rights of all and of the value of hospitality…

Such an attitude facilitates the search for common solutions and undercuts the validity of certain positions, sometimes put forward, that would limit acceptance and the granting of the right of asylum to the sole criterion of national interest…"
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Heh...I do commonly reach the point of being sorry for consistent and considered theists. This stuff (referenced by the OP) must drive them SPARE.
It certainly does me. I've said before, and I'm sure I shall again, Christians gleefully misusing the Bible to justify their bad behavior towards others, while also blithely ignoring the Bible's message to be good to others, is a far greater threat to my Christian faith than all the evolutionists and militant atheists on the planet combined.
 
Last edited:
Top