Sessions and Separation of Church and State

[Dave Roberts]

This is downright alarming to me. I hope this is not true but I fear it is.

[Jim]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Jim, you are working just like Trump--dodge the issue and attack the messenger. What about the message?

[William Thornton]

Patheos has a lot of different blogs. The one that you linked is a bit of a screed. It doesn't describe how Session's views on church/state matters are dangerous. We know libs don't like him. I haven't seen where specific policy change proposals run counter to current law. There are areas where church/state stuff is unsettled and evolving.

[KeithE]

I’ve thought long and hard about the concept of “separation of church and state(SOCAS)” - so this is not new to BL.

I believe in the "separation of the Institutions of church and state” and I believe that is what the framers had in mind in the 1st Amendment establishment clause. And obviously in the US today, no institutional faith is running our government or laws thereof.

But I do think it best that we allow political stances to be influenced by our faiths in a free and open way. It is when a group of people try to impose their sectarian religious rules onto others through legislation, that I have a problem. I say “sectarian” because some common religious based rules (e.g. thou shall not kill or thou shall not steal or thou shall love your neighbor) are virtually accepted by all faiths and atheists. As such murder, theft, hate crimes are rightfully against the secular law. Others more sectarian (non-unanimous) rules (e.g. conscientious objection, or prohibition of contraceptives) should not be carried over into the secular laws imposed on all. Those in those sects need to acknowledge that we live in a pluralistic society.

I honestly do not how Sessions defines SOCAS. I fear that he will use it selectively when it favors his views be they religiously-based, philosophically-based, or politically opportunistic- based.

My objections to Sessions is more due to his current immigration views, voting policies like gerrymandering and overburdensome voting requirements (claims of voting fraud are greatly exaggerated), hate crime rulings, and police brutality rulings. I believe like many in the South, Sessions racist viewpoints are a thing of the past. I still sometimes hear racist comments even here in Huntsville, but have no reason too believe Sessions is still in that mode.

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

[Jim]

I’m aware of the channels. This garbage came up on the channel that described itself at the time I checked it by a flashing logo as “progressive secular humanist.” In other words, it does not belong on a site purporting to be a discussion of religious beliefs, not that this matters. Secular humanism may be a religion to some, not to me. As for the “wall,” the government is guiltier than any other “institution” in breaching that wall by such actions as mandating that citizens must furnish goods or services that violate their religious beliefs but bring no harm to anyone else such as in the same-sex marriage brouhaha. In my state, the effort was made through the courts to force an agency caring for children from dysfunctional families and therefore removed by the state to hire homosexuals. The courts ruled in favor of the agency, but that probably would not be the case in Massachusetts or the current White House gang. The mayor of Houston recently mandated that ministers preaching what she didn’t like must submit their sermons to her office or else, an obvious breach of the “wall.” She, of course, was ruled out of order but the threat was real. As for quoting Jefferson about the “wall,” it needs remembering that he was the epitome of hypocrisy in his “ownership” of scores of slaves. The government has mandated that military chaplains may now be Muslim, thus flaunting before men of faith in God a “religion” demanding death to the infidel, i.e., virtually all GIs. Disgusting.

[Tim Bonney]

I've never been a fan of the voucher idea because ultimately my money is going to be going to support your religion without my permission.

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

In Houston, the city had passed a non-discrimination ordinance that was opposed by some pastors and religious groups. After failing to get the measure placed on the ballot because so many of the signatures that had been collected were invalid, a group of pastors formed an organization and sued the city to force them to put the issue on the ballot. At least one of the pastors, maybe more, used their pulpit to address the lawsuit and the ordinance. The city contended that since the pastors were suing them, any content from sermons they preached that referenced either the lawsuit or the ordinance was evidence, and had undue and unfair influence on the court proceeding. Apparently the judge agreed, and issued a subpoena requiring the sermon content be turned over. Of course, religious conservatives being the people of integrity and honesty that they are, turned the issue into the big, bad, oppressive, worldly government trying to beat up on some poor pastors and violating their religious freedom by trying to dictate what they could and couldn't preach. Personally, I don't think sneaking content into a sermon exempts a preacher from having to follow the law regarding a lawsuit that he helped initiate, nor is it a violation of his religious freedom to use the content of his sermon as evidence in a court case if its relevant, and this wasn't a case of the violation of anyone's religious liberty. But with all the holy horror going on, getting to the facts was impossible.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

There's no law against preaching against a gay rights ordinance. But that wasn't why the judge issued the subpoena for the sermon content. It was because the preachers were party to a lawsuit against the city, and the content of their preaching was considered evidence in the case on the city's behalf. That's perfectly legal, as the judge in the case pointed out. The pastors involved mischaracterized the situation to make it look like their religious freedom was being violated and to use public pressure to force the city to back down, which they did, and put the measure on the ballot, where it was defeated. A subsequent civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the pastors involved was dismissed.

Interestingly enough, the city of Houston passed an anti-discrimination ordinance which basically does the same thing that the defeated one would have done less than a year later.

[Tim Bonney]

I agree with William on this one. Dumb and dumber. In fact I bet I could make quite a name for myself if I could get some judge to subpoena my sermons. But then every sermon I've preached in the past 4 1/2 years is online for the watching.

The freedom of the pulpit is one of the major themes of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

[William Thornton]

It was monumentally stupid, Sandy, as evidenced by the result. Appallingly idiotic strategic move by the city's lawyers. The reverends probably begged the city, "please don't throw me in the briar patch."

[Jim]

[Haruo]

It's the conflation of judge and mayor that has me worried here. I recall (vaguely) the story when it broke, and I recall it being about the mayor, not a judge, more or less as William first gave it here. But maybe here (maybe even William's redaction) is what I recall from months ago. Or maybe it was reported that way in some press outlet that impinged on my consciousness. In any event, Sandy's redaction makes much better sense.

So I recuse myself from further opportunities to liken Texas mayors to Trump.

[Jim]

Accounted by the news-folks as unprecedented was the after-hearing session concerning AG nominee Jeff Sessions allowed by Chairman Grassley.  Apparently, three democrat African-American lawmakers, Senator Booker (New Jersey), Congressman John Lewis and Cedric Richmond, chairman of the U.S. House black caucus, asked to be heard in opposition to Sessions’ appointment, though there didn’t seem to be any committee members present (or at least not many) to listen to their vicious diatribes.  The TV folks ate it up and I watched it all. The worthies labeled Sessions a racist, not realizing that they, ipso facto, became racists themselves calling Sessions everything but the devil incarnate.
 
Probably unbeknownst to them, not that it matters, Chairman Grassley had lined up to speak three African-Americans who actually knew and had worked with Sessions for decades, one for 40 years.  They set the record straight.  To remark the pettiness connected to this “super-hearing,” the House caucus chairman railed at Grassley for not putting their act at the beginning of the hearing or at least somewhere during the hearing and equated that treatment with being made to go to the back of the bus.

The privileged lawmakers delivered the Jackson/Sharpton victimization apotheosis (also known as the slavery edict) and Lewis, as always, brought up Selma in castigating Sessions, who was a 19-year-old college student in 1965 and had nothing to do with the march at the bridge. It was obvious that they were simply venting their respective spleens account Queen Hillary deep-sixed at the polls. Lewis later said he would recuse himself from the inauguration account Trump not actually elected. The hatred runs deep. The effort has been constantly made to use the election as a race-issue despite the fact that probably hundreds if not thousands of blacks are employed in Trump enterprises.
 

[Jim]

Turns out John Lewis, that treasured icon, said he was skipping the inauguration for the first time. It's abundantly documented that he skipped Bush's inauguration in 2001, so he lied. He figured that Bush was not legitimately elected, just like Trump, though the U.S. constitution was accommodated both times. He thinks the Russkies tore down Hillary's doll house, but he seems to have forgotten that the Florida Supreme Court tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 but was turned around by the federal SCOTUS...took 37 days to deep-six the Florida crooks, delaying the transition in the process. Don't genuflect before old John...he's just another politician.

[Haruo]

Being forgetful is not necessarily lying, and "crooks" sounds like it should mean something, but what?

[Jim]

Not to put too fine a point on it: http://ruckmaker.blogspot.com/2017/01/c ... tions.html. The crooks sat on the Florida Supreme Court.

[Stephen Fox]

I do not speak as an expert on these personalities but I have the sense Jeff Sessions will interpret the Constitution to give Southern fundamentalism of the stripe of Rick and bubba--see baptist faith and practice post of the day--privilege over the authentic baptist views of Truett, James Dunn and the BJC. He will more likley be like Clarence Thomas and the Alliance Defending Freedom with his nuances than the "living breathing" Constitution of Frank Johnson.

My key point for John Lewis and James Clyburn is and continues to be if Jeff Sessions had faced King and George Wallace lawayers in 65 instead of Frank Johnson, a truly great Alabama Republican; if it had been Sessions and not Johnson, ML King and the Civil Rights marchers would still be in Selma waiting to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

That is where the water meets the wheel in the Bama of Trump, Rick and bubba and Jeff Sessions.