JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people! 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 Just now, JaCrispy said: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people! This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Tiberius said: This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”. The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. And people can choose whether they want to attend or not... Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”. The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. 👍 Some? They are all deeply religious! Religion by its nature is anti-science, of course they people are going to ignore science to push for the unhealthy religious gatherings 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Some? They are all deeply religious! Religion by its nature is anti-science, of course they people are going to ignore science to push for the unhealthy religious gatherings First off, let’s just be honest with each other, and not try to pretend like we know how religious each member of the Supreme Court is... Second, I disagree with your notion that religion, itself, has to be anti science...Can some religious people be anti science? Sure...But there are also people, like myself, who believe in both... Third, if you read the quote from the constitution I previously posted, it clearly states, without ambiguity, what the law is- and a majority of the justices have correctly interpreted it, imo... Now, you may not agree with what the constitution clearly states...you might want the State to have ultimate power and control over those decisions...that is your right to have that opinion...but our country was not set up that way...And it has nothing to do with what the justices think about science or the virus, imo, and everything to do with what they think about the constitution and our God given human rights...👍 Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 But what about the very first part of the sentence? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Remember, the Freedom of Religion is also the Freedom FROM Religion. The good of the country supersedes the want of any single religion. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: But what about the very first part of the sentence? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Remember, the Freedom of Religion is also the Freedom FROM Religion. The good of the country supersedes the want of any single religion. Great question...That portion of the quote is to protect against the government promoting or advocating for a particular religion... However, no single religion is being protected or advanced...the freedom to exercise religion pertains to ALL faiths... Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I am a scientist and also a man of faith. I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church. I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease. Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place. However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services. My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home. So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great. But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community. I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends. For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se. And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs. That's crap. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices: fill it or quit being a pharmacist. You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized. A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple. Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 19 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Great question...That portion of the quote is to protect against the government promoting or advocating for a particular religion... However, no single religion is being protected or advanced...the freedom to exercise religion pertains to ALL faiths... Maybe, that's open to some interpretation. But even so, the second part has also been ruled on previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Unfortunately, this latest ruling goes against precedent. Something that isnt surprising for this now-packed Supreme Court. The Separation of Church and State is crumbling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I am a scientist and also a man of faith. I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church. I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease. Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place. However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services. My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home. So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great. But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community. I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends. For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se. And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs. That's crap. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices: fill it or quit being a pharmacist. You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized. A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple. Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. Nice post...much of what you say is kind of where I’m coming from...and your concerns are certainly legitimate imo... 6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: Maybe, that's open to some interpretation. But even so, the second part has also been ruled on previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Unfortunately, this latest ruling goes against precedent. Something that isnt surprising for this now-packed Supreme Court. The Separation of Church and State is crumbling. Good stuff...informative 👍 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WideNine Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I am a scientist and also a man of faith. I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church. I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease. Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place. However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services. My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home. So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great. But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community. I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends. For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se. And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs. That's crap. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices: fill it or quit being a pharmacist. You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized. A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple. Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. Excellent post. I would add too that several cities impose health restrictions that curb individual liberties for the good of their fellow citizens. I do not see much fundamental difference from mask-wearing and distancing mandates to the existing city, county, or state-wide indoor smoking bans because of the health risk of 2nd hand smoke which takes a more round about means and years to manifest health risks. I would argue that if those folks want to exercise the freedom to create super spreader events their religious leaders should do the responsible thing and log attendance with local contact tracers in advance. The really responsible and caring thing to do for your "flock" would be to limit gatherings in person use remote video tech and encourage their safety and others around them. It does beg the question of where does the state of emergency powers extend for a jurisdiction? Perhaps not to prevent religious gatherings, but to enforce quarantines of those not following pandemic response guidance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 I have not read the case but from that CNN article, this was interesting. A lawyer for the church said that while religious worship is at times "severely restricted," grocery stores, big box retails stores, laundromats and warehouses do not have similar restrictions."The disparate treatment of religious as compared to similar nonreligious congregate gatherings unquestionably and substantially burden the Churches' exercise of religion and violates the First Amendment," the lawyer said. It sounds like CA grouped certain businesses into essential vs non-essential, putting churches in the later category. I can see the difference between Wegmans and St. Mary's but I'm not losing sleep over this decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, JaCrispy said: The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”. The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. And people can choose whether they want to attend or not... "Establishment of religion" does NOT refer to a building or other meeting place. It specifically prohibits the government from favoring a particular religion over other religions. That was the original intent because the British forced the Anglican Church on the colonies -- including supporting it with compulsory tithes -- and some colonies, like Massachusetts Bay, had persecuted non-Puritans. Two centuries of court decisions have led to the "establishment of religion" clause to mean that the government should be neutral toward religon in general, not giving religious groups/organizations advantages or disadvantages. The majority's argument in this case was that houses of worship were treated differently from businesses and other venues where people assembled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 14 minutes ago, shoshin said: It sounds like CA grouped certain businesses into essential vs non-essential, putting churches in the later category. I can see the difference between Wegmans and St. Mary's but I'm not losing sleep over this decision. I'm losing a little sleep. Between this and the NY decision, they have set the precedent that there will be no way of stopping the pandemic other than a vaccine. Even with the change of leadership. The US will refuse to enact the common sense mandates that have helped other countries curtail and control the spread of the virus. The US reported more deaths yesterday than what occurred on 9/11. We are now going to be hit with a 9/11 every day until we can get a vaccine and get it distributed to everyone in the country. It is truly a pathetic look for the US for everyone watching from the outside. We look dumb and selfish. It is going to be a long 6-8 months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: I'm losing a little sleep. Between this and the NY decision, they have set the precedent that there will be no way of stopping the pandemic other than a vaccine. Even with the change of leadership. The US will refuse to enact the common sense mandates that have helped other countries curtail and control the spread of the virus. The US reported more deaths yesterday than what occurred on 9/11. We are now going to be hit with a 9/11 every day until we can get a vaccine and get it distributed to everyone in the country. It is truly a pathetic look for the US for everyone watching from the outside. We look dumb and selfish. It is going to be a long 6-8 months. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 https://news.yahoo.com/pastor-dies-covid-19-weeks-175638135.html Pastor of mega church dies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying What Supreme Court decision forces the non-religious to do anything? In this decision, they're limiting the government from preventing people from practicing their religion as they see fit. The Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to limit the government, not empower it. This decision is consistent with limiting the government. You're "just saying", but you're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, snafu said: What Supreme Court decision forces the non-religious to do anything? In this decision, they're limiting the government from preventing people from practicing their religion as they see fit. The Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to limit the government, not empower it. This decision is consistent with limiting the government. You're "just saying", but you're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. “Protect the general welfare” Knowing and believing modern science helps with that. Religion is in many instances against science. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: “Protect the general welfare” Knowing and believing modern science helps with that. Religion is in many instances against science. Just saying You want to move the goalposts to "religion = no science"? There are no religious scientists, no religious doctors? Your position is not consistent with the real world. As for the general welfare, laws that abridge constitutionally protected freedoms must be limited, not broad-brushed. You may have a distaste for religion and religious people, but they have constitutionally protected rights. Do you have any proof that churchgoers are violating social distancing guidelines? Do you think they get together for big non-masked group hugs and then go out to the community to spread their Covid disease they don't believer in science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 36 minutes ago, snafu said: You want to move the goalposts to "religion = no science"? There are no religious scientists, no religious doctors? Your position is not consistent with the real world. As for the general welfare, laws that abridge constitutionally protected freedoms must be limited, not broad-brushed. You may have a distaste for religion and religious people, but they have constitutionally protected rights. Do you have any proof that churchgoers are violating social distancing guidelines? Do you think they get together for big non-masked group hugs and then go out to the community to spread their Covid disease they don't believer in science? As both a scientist and a Christian, I must tell you that, sadly, there are many that fit your last sentence. I am not a big social media guy but I have been on Facebook to defend science since the pandemic started. And it is frightening how many invoke God to deny science. I can’t count how many people refuse to wear masks as the most glaring example because they refuse to accept actual data and fact, and then hide behind religion as a rationale for it, saying that they follow God and not science. It’s sickening. As bad as the deaths and morbidity and economic impact are of the pandemic, what may be the worst consequence is we have so many people who simply, stubbornly refuse to accept facts. God help our society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: As both a scientist and a Christian, I must tell you that, sadly, there are many that fit your last sentence. I am not a big social media guy but I have been on Facebook to defend science since the pandemic started. And it is frightening how many invoke God to deny science. I can’t count how many people refuse to wear masks as the most glaring example because they refuse to accept actual data and fact, and then hide behind religion as a rationale for it, saying that they follow God and not science. It’s sickening. As bad as the deaths and morbidity and economic impact are of the pandemic, what may be the worst consequence is we have so many people who simply, stubbornly refuse to accept facts. God help our society. The issue is with congregants who choose to obey the guidelines. If people don't adhere to the guidelines, then their particular church can rightly be shut down. But you can't come at the issue with the presumption of disobedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, snafu said: The issue is with congregants who choose to obey the guidelines. If people don't adhere to the guidelines, then their particular church can rightly be shut down. But you can't come at the issue with the presumption of disobedience. Agreed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 4 hours ago, JaCrispy said: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people! You mean power to the Pope, power to the Imam, power to the pulpit. People who ate slaves to their religion are still slaves. So now when the preacher tells you to not go into the church is that the freedom you wanted. When your government tells you that a speed limit in the school zone is 20mph, is it your freedom that allows you to break that law.? Do you need approval from your preacher? When you are told not to go into a condemed building to protect yourself do you have the freedom to ignore that posting? The control of people into a church is safety. Nobody is telling you not to pray, or celebrate your religion, just advising you to be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, SoTier said: Sad but true. Yes it is...but the world has seen far worse, and we will get through it now like others did in years passed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 I am not religious but seems fine to me since religious people usually don't listen anyway... The irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: You mean power to the Pope, power to the Imam, power to the pulpit. People who ate slaves to their religion are still slaves. So now when the preacher tells you to not go into the church is that the freedom you wanted. When your government tells you that a speed limit in the school zone is 20mph, is it your freedom that allows you to break that law.? Do you need approval from your preacher? When you are told not to go into a condemed building to protect yourself do you have the freedom to ignore that posting? The control of people into a church is safety. Nobody is telling you not to pray, or celebrate your religion, just advising you to be safe. Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... It is not up to the individual to decide not to enter a burning building or condemed building. Education is mandatory, not your decision. The church as a building is the issue, it is burning and anyone who ignores the law and enters into the building must face the law. This is public safety. If the preacher now decides to hold a grand prayer meeting indoors in an arena that hold 50,000 is ok. The preacher declares the building as his church. People can pray when they want, how they want, as many times as they want, but not in a burning building. This is not a freedom issue. The Lord did not want you to pray to golden idols like a building. The Lord does not insist the only place to pray us in a building. That is the money people including that preacher. Jim Jones cult like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 This is a pretty deep thread but if I’m a bar owner I’m starting a church. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WideNine Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 39 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... This is the messy nature of democracies, when are personal liberties allowed to be curtailed and how? There is a concept of greater good and I think that is reflected in laws around speed limits and seat belts and such. Seems silly that we can use religion as a shield against what is widely adopted as a restriction that is good for the health and safety of the broader population. One does not have the right to knowingly trample the rights of others by putting them at risk of harm IMO. China is able to flatten the curve quickly and they have billions of people. They do this because they are not a democracy and they will shoot or imprison you if you disobey a quarantine order. We are not China, democracy is messy because it often relies on people doing the right thing and the smart thing and thinking about how they can help others and be a good citizen of our country. Unfortunately, we lack a lot of those qualities of sober, intelligent, and unselfish action that promotes self-policing and self-control for a shared goal of greater good - especially of late. Re: secularism, I do not think the separation of church and state should be viewed as excising religion from individuals or public display, so I object when those that openly express their faith (I consider humanism and atheism belief systems too) suffer retribution as if they should only be able to practice their beliefs in some kind of basement or in isolation from the public eye. Suppression is not what I believe the intent was of secularism and separation of church and state. The intent was to insulate the laws of our land from religious favoritism and prejudice. That being said I do not think the intent was to allow religions to put other citizens in harm's way. It is an interesting rendering by the Supreme Court. I think Secularism is the tolerant lifeline that humanity needs to adapt to survive and accommodate the plurality of beliefs that individuals may embrace. An example of what happens when secularism is not embraced can be seen with Muslim nations where the concept of theocracies is the norm, where integrating Sharia courts into their constitutions and the laws of the land is the norm. We can watch the net effect of this play out in real time where Turkey was on a stable trajectory under Ataturk's secular reforms only to lose it all under Erdogen and the AKP. As any can see there is inevitably a restriction in personal liberties and other religions and those that practice them are systemically disenfranchised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddo Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 The whole thing seems a simple crock to me. Nobody is stopping anyone from actually practising their religion. Nobody is persecuting any particular religion. Just about any religion is defined by the act of having 'faith'. 'Faith' is not dependent on the attendance at any church, synagogue or mosque. It isn't dependent on any act of congregation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineforty Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 On 12/4/2020 at 4:08 PM, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... there is a difference between religious freedom and religious privilege. your lack of understanding the difference is comical, mostly due to the fervor with which you speak. the justices no doubt understand this difference but still voted as they did. 3 of which were placed by a treasonous president. You like to say the Russian/Trump connections were a farce. They were not. That's not even getting to China, Israel, UAE, and last, BUT DEFINITELY not least, Saudi Arabia. But I'm getting off topic. ***** you. There, I'm back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 9, 2020 Author Share Posted December 9, 2020 10 minutes ago, Nineforty said: there is a difference between religious freedom and religious privilege. your lack of understanding the difference is comical, mostly due to the fervor with which you speak. the justices no doubt understand this difference but still voted as they did. 3 of which were placed by a treasonous president. You like to say the Russian/Trump connections were a farce. They were not. That's not even getting to China, Israel, UAE, and last, BUT DEFINITELY not least, Saudi Arabia. But I'm getting off topic. ***** you. There, I'm back. The beauty of this forum is having passionate and insightful discourse... But I’m curious, how would you define “religious privilege”? I’m not familiar with the term and it would be helpful in me having a better understanding of what you’re referring to...thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 On 12/5/2020 at 8:47 AM, Buddo said: The whole thing seems a simple crock to me. Nobody is stopping anyone from actually practising their religion. Nobody is persecuting any particular religion. Just about any religion is defined by the act of having 'faith'. 'Faith' is not dependent on the attendance at any church, synagogue or mosque. It isn't dependent on any act of congregation. Tolerant. Respectful. Non-judgemental. Nice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineforty Posted December 9, 2020 Share Posted December 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: The beauty of this forum is having passionate and insightful discourse... But I’m curious, how would you define “religious privilege”? I’m not familiar with the term and it would be helpful in me having a better understanding of what you’re referring to...thanks... You feign really well being a reasonable person who would listen to counter arguments. But these past 4 years (And scrolling through your comments/history) have taught me otherwise. Irredeemable. Like my previously favorite Uncle who i told to go to hell. Or a previous best friend. Go to hell. Lines been drawn. You are not worth it. Will try, oh how I try, to focus on the one's worth redeeming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted December 9, 2020 Author Share Posted December 9, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Nineforty said: You feign really well being a reasonable person who would listen to counter arguments. But these past 4 years (And scrolling through your comments/history) have taught me otherwise. Irredeemable. Like my previously favorite Uncle who i told to go to hell. Or a previous best friend. Go to hell. Lines been drawn. You are not worth it. Will try, oh how I try, to focus on the one's worth redeeming. Well, I have to tell ya...I enjoy engaging with people because I like learning points of view I have not heard before... Sure, I have my own set of beliefs...but I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t know everything...and I don’t claim to...nobody does...that’s the beauty of discourse...the opportunity to become more well rounded... In fact, I’ve gone into a conversation with a person, one time, thinking a particular way...And I came out of it with a completely different view point... Thats why, to me, it’s of the utmost importance to try not to insult people, or call names, or swear at people with whom you disagree- you just never know who you could have taught something to, or who you may have turned away... Im sorry you feel the way you do about our discussions...but I respect it...stay safe, my friend...👍 Edited December 9, 2020 by JaCrispy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Good news. 6 - 3 The Supreme Court issues an important freedom of religion case: "Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause." Here's the opinion, Carson v. Makin. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan and (in part) Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a separate dissenting opinion. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-supreme-court-issues-important.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, B-Man said: Good news. 6 - 3 The Supreme Court issues an important freedom of religion case: "Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause." Here's the opinion, Carson v. Makin. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan and (in part) Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a separate dissenting opinion. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-supreme-court-issues-important.html Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. False. Government subsidizing the education of ALL children. But you knew that. (or maybe your bias did blind you) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: False. Government subsidizing the education of ALL children. But you knew that. (or maybe your bias did blind you) . False. The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion). With this ruling, taxpayer money can now be funneled into religious schools. So taxpayers could now be funding Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or any school that teaches religion. You could potentially set up a school for the Church of Satan and get taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 44 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. It subsidizes Fundamental Environmentalism and the Church of the Branch Covidians. Carries out their sacraments.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts