So it Begins

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

This is the first time that the government has dictated when, how and how many can congregate. This is called precedent. It will be used to restrict religious expression in the future. Mark my words. 

and? the Government takes its cues from the disease in this case, if you want to be to hooked up to a ventilator for 2 weeks at an overcrowded hospital then have it-the rest of us would prefer to enjoy our summer. In our case here the Government says 50 can congregate so we work with that, no fuss no muss 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You are making the assumption that you can go to church when you choose to do so. The problem is that that a government entity is now telling you when and if you can attend church. What makes it worse is that the same government entity is allowing others to assemble. Their decision appears willy-nilly and capricious about a fundamental, constitutional right. 

"a government entity is now telling you when and if you can attend church": Elder Bednar's talk allows for this, but we must be vigilant against abuse and discriminatory use of government's limited power.

"the same government entity is allowing others [with the same inherent risks for exposure] to assemble": Elder Bednar's talk warns against this.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

If it does the constitution is already a dead letter. There is no precedent for restricting free speech or free religion in such a way. There is precedent for shutting down churches and other businesses due to public health concerns. A lot of precedent.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

This is the first time that the government has dictated when, how and how many can congregate. This is called precedent. It will be used to restrict religious expression in the future. Mark my words. 

Wrong. You might want to crack open a history book. There were even much more nefarious restrictions on congregating mostly to put down strikes by preventing any groups from meeting at all. Churches were shut down by governors in previous epidemics. During the Spanish flu many states shut down all church gatherings. This is not new.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

This is the first time that the government has dictated when, how and how many can congregate. This is called precedent. It will be used to restrict religious expression in the future. Mark my words. 

In this instance, the deciding characteristic against the churches seems to be the presence of a congregating audience remaining at length in each other's space with a lot of breath exchange (speaking, singing, shouting, etc. which also applies to theaters, concert venues, auditoriums, etc. that are also restricted in the same way) which don't occur in shopping or gambling establishments. That distinction "arguably" offsets the cautions of social distancing. So the basis for the decision is not that they are faith groups per se but they, like these other venues, have a congregating audience. Now that science / rationale may well be incorrect (though evidently reasonable), but I think Elder Bednar's idea that we push for "essential designation" as defined by some other characteristic(s) would offset that assumption and better protect religious expression.

Edited July 25, 2020 by CV75

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

go to church, don't go to church, why drag the USSC into this? the pandemic will go away so why waste court time?

Because when when SCOTUS makes a decision, it becomes a "standing decision" that governs all similar cases for decades.  Once they have decided something it becomes virtually impossible to make them change their minds.  Starting now, there will begin to be plenty of governmental encroachment upon religious liberties that lower courts will begin to uphold, when they previously would not have.  Because they will use this decision to enlarge their frontiers.

It's not yet sweeping, but it is one more brick in the wall, one more jenga block pulled from the edifice.

Jefferson compared the courts to "sappers and miners" (in the military sense):

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners
constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our
confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination
of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This
will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to
forget the maxim, "boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem." We shall see if
they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken.

That phrase "Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" is a legal maxim in Latin. The maxim states that it is the duty of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction.

[Islander]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In this instance, the deciding characteristic against the churches seems to be the presence of a congregating audience remaining at length in each other's space with a lot of breath exchange (speaking, singing, shouting, etc. which also applies to theaters, concert venues, auditoriums, etc. that are also restricted in the same way) which don't occur in shopping or gambling establishments. That distinction "arguably" offsets the cautions of social distancing. So the basis for the decision is not that they are faith groups per se but they, like these other venues, have a congregating audience. Now that science / rationale may well be incorrect (though evidently reasonable), but I think Elder Bednar's idea that we push for "essential designation" as defined by some other characteristic(s) would offset that assumption and better protect religious expression.

Notice that governments have not raised an eyebrow over the thousands of "peaceful protesters" assembling everywhere. Here in Denver, there are a couple of thousand people permanently camped outside the capitol and, there is no concern about social distancing? So, that part of the 1st Amendment remains intact while the free exercise of religion can be abridged alleging concerns about social distancing? It implies that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others. I don't buy it. 

 

[Islander]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and? the Government takes its cues from the disease in this case, if you want to be to hooked up to a ventilator for 2 weeks at an overcrowded hospital then have it-the rest of us would prefer to enjoy our summer. In our case here the Government says 50 can congregate so we work with that, no fuss no muss 

That would be my choice, in any event. In Nebraska there is no mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders. Regardless of what you or I can think or say about those that choose to ride without it, it is their right to do so. If you don't feel safe at church; by all means stay home. But I want to have that choice, to attend or not, regardless of the operating conditions. The alleged "greater good" is the fulcrum on which all socialists policies hinge. At the end, and trust me when I tell you since I come from a Communist country, once the government can find grounds (whatever those are) to limit/restrict a certain right, it will find another and justify it just the same. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Islander said:

That would be my choice, in any event. In Nebraska there is no mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders. Regardless of what you or I can think or say about those that choose to ride without it, it is their right to do so. If you don't feel safe at church; by all means stay home. But I want to have that choice, to attend or not, regardless of the operating conditions. The alleged "greater good" is the fulcrum on which all socialists policies hinge. At the end, and trust me when I tell you since I come from a Communist country, once the government can find grounds (whatever those are) to limit/restrict a certain right, it will find another and justify it just the same. 

My Dad grew up in Nazi Germany and his uncle was imprisoned because he was Communist during the war. Like someone once said Canada and the US are two different birds living in the same tree. We just don't have the same history

[Islander]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If it does the constitution is already a dead letter. There is no precedent for restricting free speech or free religion in such a way. There is precedent for shutting down churches and other businesses due to public health concerns. A lot of precedent.

Wrong. You might want to crack open a history book. There were even much more nefarious restrictions on congregating mostly to put down strikes by preventing any groups from meeting at all. Churches were shut down by governors in previous epidemics. During the Spanish flu many states shut down all church gatherings. This is not new.

History is replete of examples of laws that are immoral and illegitimate. Secular governments are notorious for their tendency to use the threat of force to compel citizens to do X. The same with court rulings. The Dred Scott decision or the Nuremberg Race Laws, for example, were "duly" passed or established by governments but such lacked, in my view, legitimacy. Don't forget, the Declaration of Independence addresses those issues of tyrannical rule and the right of the people to overturn the government and the laws they believe infringe on their rights.

I am taking issue with the government ignoring the thousands of protesters on the streets in defiance of the "social distancing rules" but trying to restrict religious congregations. Given the evidence, it is arbitrary.

[Islander]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My Dad grew up in Nazi Germany and his uncle was imprisoned because he was Communist during the war. Like someone once said Canada and the US are two different birds living in the same tree. We just don't have the same history

True.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Islander said:

Notice that governments have not raised an eyebrow over the thousands of "peaceful protesters" assembling everywhere. Here in Denver, there are a couple of thousand people permanently camped outside the capitol and, there is no concern about social distancing? So, that part of the 1st Amendment remains intact while the free exercise of religion can be abridged alleging concerns about social distancing? It implies that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others. I don't buy it. 

 

Actually in many places they have been shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters which I would rate above raising an eyebrow. Unless it is Spock’s eyebrow of course. His eyebrow raising is of deep import. The idea that the government does not care about the protests is silly. Public health officials are largely concerned about the protests.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In this instance, the deciding characteristic against the churches seems to be the presence of a congregating audience remaining at length in each other's space with a lot of breath exchange (speaking, singing, shouting, etc. which also applies to theaters, concert venues, auditoriums, etc. that are also restricted in the same way) which don't occur in shopping or gambling establishments. That distinction "arguably" offsets the cautions of social distancing. So the basis for the decision is not that they are faith groups per se but they, like these other venues, have a congregating audience. Now that science / rationale may well be incorrect (though evidently reasonable), but I think Elder Bednar's idea that we push for "essential designation" as defined by some other characteristic(s) would offset that assumption and better protect religious expression.

I don’t really buy that reasoning except maybe about the singing and perhaps the speaking and yelling at some of the more enthusiastic churches. Restaurant visits last about as long as a church meeting and there is more talking there than in many churches. Ca sinos have no reason to exist generally and many people sit at the slots or black jack tables much longer than they would in a church meeting. Stores do need to operate to some degree.

I agree that the government has the right to restrict houses of worship during a pandemic but I am not convinced the restrictions are evenhanded or logical. I also strongly suspect the almighty dollar in which most really trust explains most of those distinctions. I do not believe this is a threat to religious freedom unless we are endlessly wracked by pandemics. It is not a new restriction. If anti religious forces uses it outside a public health crisis as a precedent it did not increase the danger; there were already dozens of precedents for public health they could abuse in other circumstances. If it is used explicitly to shut down churches due to dangerous free speech or whatever it will be in defiance of judicial precedence with cheap excuses.

Had to break up words due to 403. This site’s filter really hates gam bling.

Edited July 26, 2020 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Islander said:

History is replete of examples of laws that are immoral and illegitimate. Secular governments are notorious for their tendency to use the threat of force to compel citizens to do X. The same with court rulings. The Dred Scott decision or the Nuremberg Race Laws, for example, were "duly" passed or established by governments but such lacked, in my view, legitimacy. Don't forget, the Declaration of Independence addresses those issues of tyrannical rule and the right of the people to overturn the government and the laws they believe infringe on their rights.

I am taking issue with the government ignoring the thousands of protesters on the streets in defiance of the "social distancing rules" but trying to restrict religious congregations. Given the evidence, it is arbitrary.

The governments (State, federal, local) are not ignoring the protesters. You could protest this tomorrow if you wanted by going to church if you want. I bet you would get less in the way of rubber bullets and tear gas if you did. Probably not our Church though since the direction to leadership is to obey these restrictions for now.

And yes, I agree the threat of force has been and will continue to be used to compel obedience or to deny liberty. Ironically that is what the protests are fighting against. So by the Declaration of Independence reasoning they have right to pursue violence to that end. Of course at that point we have to distinguish what we mean by “rights”. While I support the Founders in their declaration of inalienable rights it is not based on historical precedent. It is more of a “should be” than a “has always been” or “is”. The British American colonies was probably one of the most free groups of people on Earth considering their local rule and general lack of government intervention even while under British rule and one of the most free in recorded history. They fought back when those rights started to be restricted and the Crown stopped ignoring them. The rest of the world was definitely not that free. It was a bold statement and a bold experiment  to try to make those rights inalienable. We screwed it up in the very beginning and continue making some improvements at times and taking steps backwards some of the time.

Edited July 26, 2020 by The Nehor

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, mgy401 said:

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

Although I have my doubts about talk show hosts and many politicians, I'd expect the court will always understand the difference between a virus and an idea.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Although I have my doubts about talk show hosts and many politicians, I'd expect the court will always understand the difference between a virus and an idea.

I hope so. There are real dangers to religious liberty and general liberty out there. I recently read a piece on the history of First Amendment exceptions and limitations and it was depressing reading. Almost all the exceptions were carved out to beat on a minority group in some way. Usually an ethnic, political, or religious minority.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

and? the Government takes its cues from the disease in this case, if you want to be to hooked up to a ventilator for 2 weeks at an overcrowded hospital then have it-the rest of us would prefer to enjoy our summer. In our case here the Government says 50 can congregate so we work with that, no fuss no muss 

hundreds of people in one place, only 50 in another....does not pass the smell test of "cues from the disease. I apologize for the brevity, issues when posting

Edited July 26, 2020 by provoman

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

hundreds of people in one place, only 50 in another....does not pass the smell test of "cues from the disease.

There are differences in layout and space. You can pack more people into a chapel than you could the same space if it were a restaurant. That being said my experience locally is that most of the businesses are not following their restrictions either. 50% restaurant capacity? Yeah, not according to your parking lot. I think some of the local churches are also skirting the law. Around 60 cars in the parking lot? You are only close to the rule if all your kids started driving themselves.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

hundreds of people in one place, only 50 in another....does not pass the smell test of "cues from the disease. I apologize for the brevity, issues when posting

I am on the webpage for our province and its the same amount across the board, it depends on if its outside, social distancing in place and regulated. 50 people inside , 100 outside. 

no change for bars, breweries, beverage rooms

 

ooh, a survey!

[california boy]

7 hours ago, mgy401 said:

This is what the argument will be:

If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it may come to that — and sooner than many of us anticipate. 

And once again the "gays" are going to wipe out all churches.  Does the fear mongering ever end?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We were nearly there in California in the days of Proposition 8.

Tell me how we were nearly there in California in the days of Prop 8.  Or is this just joining in to the fear mongering that others on this board delight in stirring up against those of us that are gay.  Because as I recall, Prop 8 was a direct assault against gay citizens of this country to take away their civil rights.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Notice that governments have not raised an eyebrow over the thousands of "peaceful protesters" assembling everywhere. Here in Denver, there are a couple of thousand people permanently camped outside the capitol and, there is no concern about social distancing? So, that part of the 1st Amendment remains intact while the free exercise of religion can be abridged alleging concerns about social distancing? It implies that the rights of some are more important than the rights of others. I don't buy it. 

 

Has there been a case brought before the SCOTUS concerning these issues?  Or are you advocating that the court start issuing rulings on law when no legal matter is presented before them.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

That would be my choice, in any event. In Nebraska there is no mandatory helmet law for motorcycle riders. Regardless of what you or I can think or say about those that choose to ride without it, it is their right to do so. If you don't feel safe at church; by all means stay home. But I want to have that choice, to attend or not, regardless of the operating conditions. The alleged "greater good" is the fulcrum on which all socialists policies hinge. At the end, and trust me when I tell you since I come from a Communist country, once the government can find grounds (whatever those are) to limit/restrict a certain right, it will find another and justify it just the same. 

So everyone gets to decide about what public safety means.  Stoplights?  Just a suggestion.  Seatbelts?  optional.  There are literally hundreds if not thousands  of laws that the government has adopted for the safety of ALL citizens.  Sometimes it is just not ALL about you.  

I personally am pretty ticked off that the whole mask thing has become political and people feel the need to make some statement about their own personal right to decide what to do about public health issues.  These steps are all about reducing the spread of a deadly virus.  And these people who feel like medical science should not be taken into consideration when it comes to public safety are the exact people who are keeping the economy locked down.  The more they insist on their own personal rights, the more the virus spreads and the more the economy is affected.  

I am all for letting people do whatever they want to do concerning this virus if they are willing to stay as one group out in the middle of the desert and not reenter the population where the rest of us are trying our best to cope with the reality of how this virus spreads.  But the same people who insist on going to church along with hundreds of others are the same ones that Monday morning are wandering through grocery stores spreading whatever they picked up the day before.  This applies to ALL groups who think it is ok to gather in large numbers, ignore social distancing, and refuse to wear masks.  

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I hope so. There are real dangers to religious liberty and general liberty out there.

Agree, but limiting the number of people who can gather in a church during a pandemic is much less dangererous to religious liberty than say, POTUS declaring a ban on all members of a specific religion entering our country with SCOTUS then ruling 5-4 to uphold Executive Order 13780.

Not many people spoke up back then. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

And once again the "gays" are going to wipe out all churches.  Does the fear mongering ever end?

I dunno. Time was when I would have thought it highly unlikely for a baker to be forced to create a product expressly to celebrate an event in direct contravention of his religious beliefs. 

[Islander]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Has there been a case brought before the SCOTUS concerning these issues?  Or are you advocating that the court start issuing rulings on law when no legal matter is presented before them.  

All I said was that in my estimation, local governments have mandated and enacted ordinances in relation to the outbreak that were in this case validated by the courts. Meanwhile, they have not declared the violent protests and their potential for contributing to the outbreak, an illegal assembly and brought the law to bear against them. But it is OK to restrict religious assemblies?