Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS decision is a victory for 1st amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

---

When the free exercise of religion threatens the people as in the COVID crisis, then that exercise is not free and should be prohibited.

Quote:

---

Why is not religious gathering essential ? Certainly a church or synagogue that can fit 500 -1000 congregants can comply with the covid restrictions that are imposed on grocery stores and restaurants.

---

Good question. Simple answer. The reason is that the church or synagogue is not essential. Comparing its capacity to the capacity of a grocery store or Walmart's is a false comparison. Food and supplies are essential. A church or synagogue service is not essential. If a church or synagogue were to be used as an overflow hospital with beds and doctors, then it would be essential.

When nine highly educated wise adults cannot see this simple truth and instead get mired in the semantics of constitutional theory and originalism and philosophy, they are diving too deeply. A child can see the correct decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

When the free exercise of religion threatens the people as in the COVID crisis, then that exercise is not free and should be prohibited.



Good question. Simple answer. The reason is that the church or synagogue is not essential. Comparing its capacity to the capacity of a grocery store or Walmart's is a false comparison. Food and supplies are essential. A church or synagogue service is not essential. If a church or synagogue were to be used as an overflow hospital with beds and doctors, then it would be essential.

When nine highly educated wise adults cannot see this simple truth and instead get mired in the semantics of constitutional theory and originalism and philosophy, they are diving too deeply. A child can see the correct decision.

---

The whole thing here revolves around entry into a building rather than the practice of a religion. The practice of a religion is not prohibited, a large gathering in a building is, just as it is in any building. It seems the constitution is more an impediment to public health than a help

Quote:

---

I was not making light of it.

---

Kind of hard to imagine how you could have meant this in anything even approaching a serious manner. "how much baby whacking goes on over there? obviously too much because the level of brain damage is extraordinary"

Quote:

---

The reason is that the church or synagogue is not essential.

---

No. It's merely Constitutionally protected. I would add that I think I could make a good case that places of worship are at least as essential as liquor stores.

Quote:

---

When nine highly educated wise adults cannot see this simple truth and instead get mired in the semantics of constitutional theory and originalism and philosophy, they are diving too deepl

---

Yeah. We certainly wouldn't want the Supreme Court to get all caught up in that "constitutional theory" stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Kind of hard to imagine how you could have meant this in anything even approaching a serious manner. "how much baby whacking goes on over there? obviously too much because the level of brain damage is extraordinary"

---

A statement of fact, your society appears to be mad at times, like too many shaken babies

So you really believe that doctors routinely "whack" newborns, that it is what Tom meant, and that it is causing extraordinary levels of brain damage? Well...OK. Don't really know what to say to that other than, "good night".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you really believe that doctors routinely "whack" newborns, that it is what Tom meant, and that it is causing extraordinary levels of brain damage? Well...OK. Don't really know what to say to that other than, "good night".

---

well a good night, a good morning and a good afternoon to you too, and the whacks I was referring to are delivered in child raising, not child birthing. The judicial decision on whacking didn't refer just to birthing but a socitial norm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

The whole thing here revolves around entry into a building rather than the practice of a religion. The practice of a religion is not prohibited, a large gathering in a building is, just as it is in any building. It seems the constitution is more an impediment to public health than a help

---

That is a valid point, but the court looked at it from the point of view of the free exercise of religion. In effect, they ruled incorrectly by that reasoning since religion was an incidental factor. The issue, as you say, was prohibiting a gathering of people in an area hard hit by COVID.

Instructive are two previous instances where the court rejected similar cases by churches. The difference this time was Justice Barrett who cast the deciding vote. Barrett is on record as telling law students that a legal career has its primary purpose furthering the "Kingdom of God". Barrett's zealous Catholicism is troubling in a SC justice.

The court majority complicated what was not complicated to begin with. Occam's Razor.

Quote:

---

Barrett is on record as telling law students that a legal career has its primary purpose furthering the "Kingdom of God". Barrett's zealous Catholicism is troubling in a SC justice.

---

She's not "on record" as saying that. A journalist stated she said it. At any rate, it would be a perfectly consistent statement for any genuine Christian to make, but she has never stated that her Christian faith would take precedence over the law in the carrying out of her duties as a Supreme Court justice, nor is there any evidence that such a thing has happened in the past in her career as a fed judge.

Quote:

---

the whacks I was referring to are delivered in child raising, not child birthing. The judicial decision on whacking didn't refer just to birthing but a socitial norm

---

What? The judicial decision under discussion was Roe vs. Wade. It had to do with abortion, and nothing to do with some societal norms about raising and disciplining children. But even if that was true, you really believe that some "whacks" to a child's bottom somehow induce severe brain injury???

Whether churches are as essential as liquor stores is a moot point since both can be regulated by local authority for public safety conditions regardless, so maybe they cannot be closed, but no doubt they can be limited, and or fined for those violations of public safety protocols, procedures, policies, and regulation.

I just have to think any church official that would even consider putting his parishioners in harms way would be a public menace.

Quote:

---

Whether churches are as essential as liquor stores is a moot point since both can be regulated by local authority for public safety conditions regardless, so maybe they cannot be closed, but no doubt they can be limited, and or fined for those violations of public safety protocols, procedures, policies, and regulation.

---

But they cannot be singled out and treated more strictly. That was at the core of the case. "The Supreme Court majority said the rules “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment” by imposing tighter restrictions on them than on, for example, acupuncture facilities and garages.

The immediate effect is likely to be limited. New York officials say all the affected areas have been converted to “yellow zones,” where houses of worship aren’t subject to any additional limits under the Cluster Initiative. Some of the areas had previously been classified as “red zones,” where churches and synagogues are limited to the lesser of 25% of capacity or 10 people."

Now very plainly it is ridiculous to limit a church with a seating capacity of a thousand to only 10 people for a service, but that's what NYC was doing. In the meantime, they did absolutely nothing to break up "protests" of thousands of people.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...cid=uxbndlbing

I'm waiting for a Cowboy's fan to sue for his right to see a game in person, but given the performance of the team that may be a stretch. To your point though, I think churches and liquor stores should be treated equally, and I'm sure that you would agree if we shut down liquor stores or restrict occupancy for safety and health considerations then the churches should be under the same protocols, right?

Quote:

---

The whole thing here revolves around entry into a building rather than the practice of a religion. The practice of a religion is not prohibited, a large gathering in a building is, just as it is in any building. It seems the constitution is more an impediment to public health than a help

---

there are also restrictions to outside gatherings .

Quote:

---

the whacks I was referring to are delivered in child raising, not child birthing. The judicial decision on whacking didn't refer just to birthing but a socitial and



norm

---

and I already gave the definition I used in making that statement . That is the last I have to say on the semantics .

Quote:

---

Whether churches are as essential as liquor stores is a moot point since both can be regulated by local authority for public safety conditions regardless, so maybe they cannot be closed, but no doubt they can be limited, and or fined for those violations of public safety protocols, procedures, policies, and regulation.

I just have to think any church official that would even consider putting his parishioners in harms way would be a public menace.

---

AND as I already stated ,the churches in the district could EASILY satisfy the safety requirements that are given to secular places . The court was very clear . There was disparate treatment which made it not only an Article 1 free exercise violation ;but also a 14th amendment equal protection clause violation .

I just can't get that picture of hundreds of people packed in a church with no safety recommendations evident, out of my mind Tom. I find that irresponsible by both the parishioners and clergy leaders. I'm sure other churches are more aware of the dangers of the virus and take appropriate actions and options but it's a big country.

We've know early on that such gatherings are super spreader events. Actual data has also revealed that our response is hardly leading the world as it is but I suppose we have a right to deal with a crisis as we individually see fit. Whether it works or not is becoming quite evident.

Quote:

---

I think churches and liquor stores should be treated equally, and I'm sure that you would agree if we shut down liquor stores or restrict occupancy for safety and health considerations then the churches should be under the same protocols, right?

---

If you can show me a Constitutionally protected right to enter a liquor store, then I will agree with you.

Quote:

---

I just can't get that picture of hundreds of people packed in a church with no safety recommendations evident,

---

I don't think that is the result of the decision. My understanding is that the churches will be limited to 25% capacity. Tom might be able to enlighten us on that.

The church I go to has seats marked that can be used . Masks are required ;and temperatures taken before entry . The rest is common courtesy amongst parishioners . It is as simple as that . If you have a picture of any church like the crowds that were at the mall on Black Friday you are sadly mistaken. I suggest you attend one some time .

No thanks, my devices works fine. For the record it can't be easy rallying against an invisible opportunistic killer. Some manage it better than others.

yes a thousand seat church can keep within guidelines of 25% and still have 250 in attendance ......which frankly and unfortunately is far more than required for most masses . I can't speak to the synagogues .But if you limit to 10 you are effectively shutting them down. Now I am only speaking of what
I was told by a Jewish friend... There has to be a quorum of 10 men for a service to take place(minyan) . If lets say the 10 person max requirement is in place then only men could attend .
Clete and others who would impose their values on Christians and Jews by saying where and how someone else can and should worship are being arrogant . Maybe for Clete the televangelist on Sunday morning satisfies his sense of religious worship . But for most people that attend services ;it is the parish ,the community ,the congregation that is as important to them as the service itself . I have watched Catholic services on television . They do not give to me the sense of fulfilment that being at the service ;receiving communion does .

Quote:

---

But for most people that attend services ;it is the parish ,the community ,the congregation that is as important to them as the service itself .

---

Absolutely true.

I won't fault anyone for being afraid of sickness and death or what they do about it. People tend to have intense feelings and strong reactions for darn near anything anyway.