about how un-Christian the policy is, how immoral it is, to not hold kids in the same cells as their parents when their parents are detained.
Then again, if the government isn't to be Christian, then there's no reason to expect it to abide by Xian morality, is there?
Listen to the objections proffered, not just one's personal objections. The discourse is bigger and more extensive than either your role in it or my role in it. I think it's worth pointing out that if you're a Marxist and there's a range of criticisms of you, the criticism that you'll find most salient is the one that questions your commitment and views; if you're a Muslim and there's a range of criticisms of you, the criticism that you'll find the most concerning is the one that concerns your identity and self-perception. For Sessions, who considers himself a Xian and sees that as an important component of his identity, the charges he finds most important to answer are those most important to him--not that he's acting in a way contrary to the Qur'aan or the UN Charter on Human Rights, but to Xianity. In this, he's like you or me, thoroughly human. It's always a good idea to see the humanity in you foe, otherwise he becomes less a straw man and more a caricature, and you lose moral standing because you're busy dehumanizing. We've seen arguments against that, and they apply pretty much all the way 'round.
(It also pays to recall where the "separation between"--not "from"--"church and state" came from. A letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist Church in New England, in which he's responding to their concern that a national day of Thanksgiving might be declared. In it, Jefferson say that he has no authority to do such a thing, because the executive branch is too limited for even such proclamations under the Constitution; unless, of course, Congress authorized it, but that would be a violation of the Constitution's first amendment. In other words, Jefferson said, he sees a "wall of separation between church and state" that would prevent Congress from interfering with their freedom of conscience and forbid Congress from authorizing something like a Thanksgiving Day, which would be a meddling of government in religion. Notice that--just declaring a day of Thanksgiving would violate the right to religious freedom on the part of the religious. Think about how that would play out in dealing with the non-religious, a non-issue in this letter because it was between him and that particular church. I personally think Thanksgiving Day, Xmas, Easter are unacceptable. Then again, just try telling even atheists that they lose some federal holidays.
(Very few people would accept Jefferson's conclusion today, secularists leading the charge against him, if they couldn't use it as a baton against foes. Most think a much more aggressive action on the part of the executive branch is part of the warp and woof of the Constitution, and that commanding obeisance against freedom of conscience is not only an okay thing, but compulsion in matters moral and religious is actually required if we're to push proper and good doctrine into the minds of the benighted religious. So we hate the way of separation as much as the Reconstructionists do, if truth be told. We've gone from "conformity is evil and we should question authority" as a group to "we're individuals, celebrate it," to "you must conform in action, word, and though, both in your public and private lives, and if you dare to question our morality we will punish you evil doers for it." Oppressed to oppressors in my lifetime. But moral victors never see themselves as oppressors, only as virtuous.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
