On Thursday June 14, 2018 Attorney General Jeff Sessions threw away nearly three hundred years of history and progress. While defending separating parents from their children at the border Sessions quoted Romans XIII as justification. If you’re like me, you had to go look up what Romans XIII actually states, but as a refresher Romans XIII discusses the right of Gods’ chosen to rule and the duties of the people. Upon hearing Sessions quote one can’t help but wonder what happened to the separation of church and state? It’s a cornerstone to our constitution as well as paramount to ensuring our first amendment rights. Furthermore, the only thing Sessions has done is offer up an excuse for this administrations’ actions.
The first amendment is somewhat more complicated than it looks at first glance, but the relevant section today is the Establishment Clause. The Establishment clause essentially prevents any laws that would push our government towards a theocratic setting. It claims there can’t be an established government religion, which would entail the government forcing its’ citizens to practice a chosen religion. It also states the government must not show preference to one religion over another, or to religious citizens over non religious citizens. As a note, there are many controversies surrounding this such as saying “One nation under God” or swearing people in for testimony on the bible, but these issues are relatively small. They may be indicative of underlying problems in our society, but do no real damage themselves.
There are many problems with what Sessions said and I hope to cover each of them briefly, but they all stem from the idea of monastic theory. A monastic theory is the idea that morality is ensured only by achieving one value. In this case, Sessions is placing the idea of divine right at the very top of the list. The idea of the divine right to rule has existed since there have been governments to rule. It’s been invoked by multiple rulers in the name of a variety of deities from numerous religions. At first emperors or kings would claim to be a incarnation of Gods’ will or possibly a demigod. The Divine Right of Kings was a term coined in the early 1600’s as a justification for King James ruling as an absolute monarch over both the government and the church. He was the highest authority in any and all matters. God had chosen his bloodline to lead and by that extent he was chosen by God to rule over mankind. Does this sound familiar? It’s nearly a synonym for Romans XIII, which was quoted by Sessions. However, the biggest problem behind monastic theories is the harm they can justify. If Sessions says God agrees with us on separating parents and children at the border and we accept it as moral, what happens when someone says God agrees with their law to enslave people who are different? Oh wait, we already know what happens, it led to one of the darkest periods in American history.
A child should never be expected to grow up without a mother or father. It’s unfortunate that it happens, but in these situations it’s usually unpreventable. This disgrace of a law is not one of those situations. We have the ability to change the outcome. If your parents are American then you are American. If the child is an American citizen, the parent has every right to be one as well. I’m not an expert in religion by any stretch of the imagination, but I can’t understand how a culture focused on family values can be used to justify tearing families apart. Morality is not the same piety, and piety cannot be used to justify immoral actions. There’s even a distinction between morality and legality. Some laws can be wrong, and this is without a doubt one of them. This above all else is what bothers me about Sessions statement. He claims separating families due to the law isn’t unjustified, meaning the law permits it, but the fact that the law may justify an action does not make an action just.
Overall, Sessions use of a scripture doesn’t actually bother me much. It can and has been used to commit atrocities, but Sessions use of scripture is little more than a failed attempt to win support from religious organizations. It is the fact that he uses meaningless out of context jargon to try and manipulate the rule of law. Romans XIII states that we should be afraid to go against our government because they “bear the sword”. Sessions message is not one of morality or piety, but one of fear. The Machiavellian idea is outdated and immoral. As Alan Moore said, “People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” Any law can be written and used to justify an action. What we must remember and hold Sessions and his kind to is the fact that just because we can justify something does not in any way reflect the morality of our actions. Throughout history numerous tragedies have all been justified, but I have never learned of a single one that was truly just.
Sources:
- Bible Gateway. (n.d.). Romans 13 NIV – Submission to Governing Authorities. Retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 13&version=NIV
- Britannica, T. E. (2017, March 22). Divine right of kings. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings
- Carlson, D. (2017, June 03). Establishment Clause. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
- Kopan, T. (2018, June 14). Sessions cites Bible to defend immigration policies resulting in family separations. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/jeff-sessions-immigration-policy-defense-biblical/index.html
- USConstitution.net. (n.d.). The United States Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online. Retrieved from https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html