And with this decision all faith in SCOTUS dies

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Ghost1958, May 30, 2020.

  1. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,895
    537
    113
    Christians will not bow! Our Founders would not have. There is no Sheriff in free America who shut the Church Doors! And Church exist wherever two or more meet in his name at least.
    Waiting to see what Roberts and Kavanugh do on 2A. Kavanaugh was picked because his support for 2A is a joke.
     
  2. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,089
    4,363
    113
    Have to disagree with this

    The 1A specifically spells out that gov is prohibited from interfering with the freedom of religion

    Nowhere does it tie that anything else.
    Whether the local bar, restaurant etc is closed or gov having the authority to do it has zip to do with what the founders recognized as a preexisting right that gov has no authority to interfere with. Specifically or otherwise.
    Either the constitution is binding in every case or it's not binding in any case.
     

  3. W.T. Sherman

    W.T. Sherman Well-Known Member

    1,637
    2,103
    113
    well, lets see mosque and synagogues are closed here as well as in isreali and mecca and around the entire planet and there is no outcry about that here, mainly because those people are smart enough to know that the virus is spread from human to human in close proximity, so why do you christians falsely believe that your "religious freedom is trampled upon"?

    gov't isn't stopping you from believing in your "god" or from you "praying". isn't it one of your christian tenants that your "god" is everywhere? and he hears your "prayers" no matter where your are? even if you're all alone? so there is no infringement on your rights, you are still are free to believe in your "god" and to "pray and worship it" to your heart's content
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2020
    alsaqr, Maineiak and donthav1 like this.
  4. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,089
    4,363
    113
    Not as it is commanded in ths bible.
    Yep God is everywhere.
    Unlike the red herrings you threw out , there is no BOR protecting freedom of religion in those countries.

    Our governors and government has no authority to interfere in the slightest way with the practice of any religion. Period.
    As I said. Either the constitution is the law of the land in all cases or it is so much extra toilet paper the next time some gov power grabbing thug finds an excuse to violate it " just in these special circumstances"
    Many of Americans are sick to death to of this ginned up panicky power grab over a new strain of flu that kills fewer than the regular flu. Sick of trading liberty for a false sense of safety.
     
  5. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    962
    1,378
    93
    Prohibited from interfering with the establishment of religion. Which the courts have indeed interpreted as one's choice of religion, choice of practice, to choose not to, etc. But, that's about the person as the individual, for that person's choice. No interference. Absolutely.

    Doesn't say anything about protecting people from "swinging the fist into someone else's nose" so to speak, in terms of gatherings in close-quarters despite a highly contagious pathogen likely being in many (even most) people.

    That goes beyond a person's individual choice. That aspect speaks to what people inflict upon others. And, quite simply, that part's not protected by the BOR's prohibitions on religious establishment/choice.
     
  6. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    i'll pass this time
     
  7. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    sorry, die within six months of retirement-- hogwash!
     
  8. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    guess you read a different version of the article, quote:

    While Washington believed wholeheartedly in the efficacy of inoculation, in May of 1776 he ordered that no one in his army be inoculated; violations of this order would result in severe punishment. unquote

    quote
    Washington eventually instituted a system where new recruits would be inoculated with smallpox immediately upon enlistment. As a result soldiers would contract the milder form of the disease at the same time that they were being outfitted with uniforms and weapons. Soldiers would consequently be completely healed, inoculated, and supplied by the time they left to join the army. unquote
     
  9. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    G66enigma...minor nit...your quote
    Lest we forget, the BOR's 1A protection is specific:

    Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion

    Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of thepress; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    see that little comma on the main clause means the second clause behind the OR and THEREOF then the semi colon ending the religion clause; unfortunately this country's overseers have prohibited the free exercise of citizens religion -- that is the crucial concern.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  10. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    humm Mohammed, Jesus, Billy Graham, and all those past & current evangelicals and faith healers might kinda disagree bout not needing to assemble to get their message across to the masses.

    tho the ecumenical show "the christopher's" thrived for years in the early days of tv with the motto

    "it is better to light one little candle than curse the darkness"
    as for getting into heaven...kind folks might not, but since nobody ever come back from the pearly gates and stated..."darn st peter wouldn't let me in cuz i only got my preaching from the tv!" guess we'll never know?
     
  11. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Well-Known Member

    1,023
    540
    113
    well, actually the courts have interpreted & discerned citizens' free speech has some prohibitions, such as hollar'g "FIRE"!
     
  12. winds-of-change

    winds-of-change The Balota's Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    33,288
    8,692
    113
    Our church has done very well with their live streaming of church on Sunday and Zoom meeting Bible studies on Wednesday. There is a check in link to say you attended. The church has higher attendance and have reached more people with the availability online. My daughter and granddaughter attend the Zoom Bible study meetings from another state.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  13. Maineiak

    Maineiak Active Member

    208
    165
    43
    Any church that cares about its people, more than the collection plate, will want to keep gatherings closed until its safe.
     
    alsaqr and W.T. Sherman like this.
  14. BillM

    BillM Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,243
    151
    63
    Hmm. I read it that he ordered existing troops inoculated, and also ordered all new
    recruits inoculated:


    "Mass Inoculation

    After weeks of indecision, Washington issued the order to have all troops inoculated on February 5, 1777, in a letter to President John Hancock. The next day, a second letter was sent to Dr. William Shippen, Jr. that ordered all recruits arriving in Philadelphia to be inoculated"
     
  15. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,852
    6,364
    113
    A church that cares will offer multiple options to its congregation, including the option to attend in person. Then each individual member needs to decide what is the best way to worship, in person, on line, etc.

    Churches were given the green light in my neck of the woods on 5/22. I believe we go to 'phase 2" soon.

    The only thing virus related that is out of the ordinary for me now is going out to eat. We could go out, but my wife is not ready.
     
    Ghost1958 and ellis36 like this.
  16. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    12,933
    2,557
    113
    If the church ran its own infirmary with icu beds and ventilators, maybe. In reality an outbreak within the congregation would be a public health problem like any other outbreak. Claiming a religious exemption to plague was stupid even in the Middle Ages.
     
    TelstaR and W.T. Sherman like this.
  17. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,089
    4,363
    113
    On churches? Cite please.

    Or interfered with religion in any way?

    When you limit a sick person's movements that's quarantine.
    When you limit everyone's movement that my friend is tyranny.

    I venture my comprehension of the COTUS would fit better with old George than yours. I only go by what is plainly written in it. Without inserting things not there so I can feel ok with violating itm
     
  18. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,089
    4,363
    113
    Its constitutional. Regardless of your enlightened opinion of stupid.
     
  19. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,089
    4,363
    113

    Just have to agree to disagree my friend.
    .the 1A doesnt mention fringes or fists and noses.
    Your right to exercise a constitutional right exists . Period.

    If your doing so bothers my nose that much I have the right to move my nose.
    But I dont have the right nor does gov to limit your right.
    The BOR was written to protect preexisting individual rights.

    Regulating or interfering with the thr freedom of religion is no different than doing so with the RTKABA , the 4h A etc.

    Either the constitution binds gov or it does not.
    Cant be both ways and still claim a free republic protected by a COTUS.
     
  20. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    962
    1,378
    93
    That doesn't, though, cover infliction of injury upon others. Which is basically the argument State law rests upon when deciding "distancing" and "quarantine" situations are legitimately controlled.

    I certainly agree that current implementations have gone way, way too far. But, again, the exercise of one's liberty is one thing. Infliction of injury or harm upon another is something else. THAT part's not in the protection, and it's something else beyond one's "exercising" of their beliefs.

    If we were speaking of anthrax or smallpox or Ebola, I'd say it's a slam-dunk argument that there's legitimate community concern over proximity. With the common cold or other low-grade stuff, I can't see similar claims ever holding a candle in courts. This SARS things is somewhere in the middle. Nowhere near as deadly as those other "deadly" diseases, but vastly easier to transmit, and vastly more capable of being infectious despite people having no clue.

    And therein lies the limit of someone's "free exercise." Of a thing is fine. Right up to the point it inflicts upon another. Like with listening to music. Listening is absolutely your right. Right up to the point everyone for the next 100 houses is also "forced" to listen to it as well. Again the "swing a fist, right up to another's nose" thing.

    I don't believe most of the edicts issued around the country have been justifiable, but then we don't get to make that decision. They've been held essentially justifiable, not just with current challenges but also over the span of epidemic response for a century and more, in the U.S. (Wish that weren't the case for broad-stroke "law" on such stuff, but it exists and has largely been upheld.)

    Again, exercise your liberty. Great, as you see fit, as you choose, just so long as another isn't inflicted injury because of it. 'Cause that's when others have every right to say "Hold on a minute ... that 'free' exercise has now gone too far."

    It's not about religion. We could be speaking of almost any other thing. Baseball in the nearby field, right up to when the ball's knocked through the windows of the nearby homes; music in the back yard, right up to when everyone within a half mile is forced to listen through their rattling walls; and, with a grossly-infectious disease that can easily transmit for week(s?) without the carrier knowing, possibly causing death or much injury to many others.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020