CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 11 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, that the prevalence of executive orders is worrying even if they do not threaten anything. I find that proposition insanely paranoid. As with your prior post, this is not at all what I've suggested, either.
stemelbow Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 I do think people tire of the complaint that religious liberty is under attack. Alito references Catholic Charities being "under unrelenting attack" for refusing to "allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees." Sounds ominous...maybe. What does he mean by attack? And why is someone's critique of a religious group's decision anything against religious liberty. He then complains "for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated." after citing the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision out of Colorado and Ralph’s Pharmacy case from Washington state. Both of which stemmed from discrimination by the religious. Somehow the religious decisions to discriminate against others (in the case of the Cakeshop, they want to discriminate against LGBTQ potential customers and Ralph's pharmacy wanted to make a move to withhold from their employees access to certain contraceptives because the owners disagreed with the employees). This does represent a good example of how things get turned around by religion. Somehow they are under attack because they proceeded to make moves to push people out. Saying religions should stop services until the pandemic is over is really just a smart move...it has nothing to do with trying to hurt religion. How people have been trying to make it some special attack on religion is quite a bait and switch game to behold.
smac97 Posted November 18, 2020 Author Posted November 18, 2020 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I do think people tire of the complaint that religious liberty is under attack. I think most such "people" are irreligious, and hence do not value or respect the principle of religious liberty, and hence do not perceive or care about threats to it. Meanwhile, however, the U.S. Constitution and the decisions construing it have quite a bit to say about religious liberty. Indeed, the worldwide community has a lot to say about religious liberty: Quote Under international human rights law, it’s clear that protecting religious freedom and other related civil rights is a core responsibility of the state. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—a key international treaty that has been ratified by over 170 countries—lists many of these rights. These include the freedom of movement (Article 12), which is the right to leave any country, to enter the country of your own nationality, and to move freely within the borders of any country where you’re legally present. There’s also the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association (Articles 21 and 22). And for those who advocate for religious liberty, Article 18 contains a crucial freedom: the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Under the ICCPR, “[t]his right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” These fundamental civil rights are also reflected, often in similar language, within the national constitutions of many countries around the world. Yep. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Alito references Catholic Charities being "under unrelenting attack" for refusing to "allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees." Sounds ominous...maybe. Quite ominous, yes. If the State came along and said that it or your employer could compel you, by force of law, and under threat of punishment (fine and/or imprisonment) to attend religious services on Sunday, to confess that Jesus is Lord, and to sustain Russell M. Nelson as the presiding high priest and prophet, seer and revelator, I think you would find that "ominous." And you would be right. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What does he mean by attack? Well, not a physical attack, obviously. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And why is someone's critique of a religious group's decision anything against religious liberty. He wasn't speaking of "someone's critique of a religious group's decision." He was speaking of government mandates that compel religious individuals and groups to do and/or say things that violate their religious beliefs. I get that you don't care if religious people are coerced into violating their religious principles, but I would hope that you could at least understand that we care about such things. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: He then complains "for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated." Yes. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: after citing the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision out of Colorado and Ralph’s Pharmacy case from Washington state. Yes. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Both of which stemmed from discrimination by the religious. Well, no. And meanwhile, the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission allowed gay bakers to refuse to make cakes that conveyed messages that contravened their views. This happened at least three times. Was that "discrimination" too? Or is it only when religionists do it? "Discrimination by thee and thine, but not by me and mine," I suppose. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This does represent a good example of how things get turned around by religion. I disagree. There is nothing "turned around" in either case. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Somehow they are under attack because they proceeded to make moves to push people out. They are "under attack" because they are being compelled by the government, under threat of find and/or imprisonment, to violate their religious beliefs. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Saying religions should stop services until the pandemic is over is really just a smart move...it has nothing to do with trying to hurt religion. Well, it sure is looking that way. Rioters can take over the streets of New York, but Jews can't meet in their synagogue? People can congregate in a gym or an abortion clinic, but not in a church? People can join protests and ignore social distancing guidelines, but they can't meet together to worship God? 48% of Americans thing that in-person religious services should be completely disallowed by the government because of COVID. In Washington State "Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a ban on religious gatherings of any size during the COVID-19 pandemic, even prohibiting two people from meeting together to pray and read scripture and criminalizing all religious gatherings outside of family members." And yet people can gather together for other reasons. To work. To go to the gym. To get an abortion. People traveling to purchase liquor or home repair items is authorized in New York because it's an "essential service," but meeting together in a religious meeting is forbidden. If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did a federal judge issue a temporary restraining order to stop Kentucky Governor Beshear’s attempt to halt in-person worship during the COVID-19 pandemic? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did the Attorney General of Kentucky issue an opinion defending religious schools from state and local officials attempting to prevent them from reopening? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why Maryland Governor Larry Hogan issue an emergency order removing the authority of local health agencies to shut down private, religious schools? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did law enforcement officers in Greenville, Mississippi issue tickets carrying a $500 fine to members in the church parking lot, sitting in their cars listening to a sermon from their pastor? These are the sorts of things that, I think, Justice Alito had in mind when he spoke of religious liberty becoming a "second-class right." You have the right to get an abortion, or join a protest or a riot, or go to the gym, but you do not have the right to attend religious services. Apparently the vast majority of houses of worship - 90% according to a recent Pew survey, have gone along with these restrictions. However, there is concern, and good reason for it: Quote Religious believers care about public health, too, and many churches and religious communities, even among the most traditional, have found ways to be flexible. Many have taken advantage of the internet and online streaming to hold virtual worship services and Bible studies—a contemporary version of spoiling the Egyptians. But a handful of churches have brought lawsuits challenging the bans on constitutional grounds, and that number is likely to increase. As my colleague, Marc DeGirolami, writes, “temperatures are rising”—for two reasons. First, after weeks of isolation, people have tired of restrictions on social and commercial life, and state and local governments inevitably have begun to loosen constraints on public gatherings. As more and more activities resume after being “on pause,” maintaining restrictions on corporate worship will seem unreasonable. To give an example from outside the US, the Italian government recently announced plans to reopen museums, libraries, restaurants, and many retail shops while continuing the ban on church services, a decision that has deeply angered the country’s Catholic bishops and struck many observers as irrational. No doubt, some local governments in the US would favor doing something similar here. Second, at least some elected officials have shown a tendency to overreach and target believers unfairly. Here in New York, Mayor DeBlasio has warned that churches that hold services during the epidemic risk “permanent” closure—an empty threat, but one that indicates where the mayor’s heart lies. Moreover, at the end of April, in response to a Hasidic funeral in Brooklyn that violated the ban on gatherings, the mayor tweeted a petulant warning to the entire “Jewish community.” The mayor did not similarly castigate the crowds that had gathered across town to watch a US Navy and Air Force flyover. I agree with this sentiment (emphasis added) : Quote “At no time in the history of this nation has the government (federal or state) ever attempted to impose such onerous restrictions on the rights of religious individuals as we are seeing play out in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” writes John Whitehead, founder and president of the Charlottesville, Virginia-based civil liberties group the Rutherford Institute. Government officials’ actions limiting public gatherings to stem the spread of the deadly pandemic caused by the contagious COVID-19 have led to a spate of lawsuits filed by churches, religious liberty groups and others in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia—many over restrictions on religious liberty that began around Easter. ... Government officials assert a compelling interest in protecting health and life. “There is a compelling interest in the protection of live human beings from dying a preventable death,” says Marci Hamilton, the Robert A. Fox Leadership Program Professor of Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. “We know that social distancing right now is the best and safest means of saving humans from dying or suffering from COVID-19. The problem is not simply that they might infect each other but also that all of them would still need to go to the store or other essential businesses. Life is a compelling interest.” On the other hand, churches and individuals have a fundamental right to freely practice their religious faith. “Churches have a fundamental constitutional right to free exercise and free assembly,” says Luke Goodrich, vice president of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. “At the same time, those rights are not absolute. Just as with free speech, you can’t say anything you want, with freedom of religion, you can’t spread a virus to others.” Goodrich acknowledges that in a pandemic, the government had a very strong argument for limiting large gatherings of people. “But the government must do so uniformly and can’t target or single out religious gatherings,” he says. “If you can drive through a McDonald’s and get a hamburger, you should be able to drive through and hear a preacher,” Whitehead says. “I know it is a difficult time but religious liberty rights must be protected and respected.” And this (emphasis added) : Quote In Mendocino County, California, the Department of Public Health said churches could stream their services but could not sing. The governor of Kansas signed an executive order forbidding churches to meet (even in parking lots). In Nevada the governor there banned drive-in church services. To be clear, I believe that Christians certainly have a duty out of love of neighbor to comply with general policies — policies that apply equally to everyone. To specifically target and single out religion, implementing and mandating policies that are not applied to other groups of society is a violation of religious liberty. And this (emphases added) : Quote So, how can a government forbid religious gatherings? The short answer is that some fundamental civil rights—including some religious freedom rights—are not absolute in every circumstance. While the realm of conscience and religious belief can never be imposed on by the state, there are some circumstances in which someone’s ability to act on those beliefs may, in the face of another paramount public need, be subject to reasonable and appropriately shaped restrictions. This distinction—between inner conscience and external actions—has deep roots in law and philosophy and is currently expressed in both international law and the law of many nations. What sort of public interest could possibly justify such extraordinary government interference? In the words of Article 18 of the ICCPR, the freedom to act on one’s beliefs can be “subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Similar provisions can be found in many national constitutions, where a compelling public interest may give the state authority to impose limits on civil rights, including the right to exercise one’s religious freedom. Thus, in the face of a global pandemic, unprecedented in recent times, limits on the size of public gatherings and restrictions on one’s freedom of movement—measures that are driven by serious public health concerns—can be justified, even if these restrictions impact the ability of believers to gather together for worship. Most religious communities have readily accepted these restrictions as part of the broader community effort to combat the spread of COVID-19. People of faith, as caring and responsible members of society, are eager to do whatever necessary to ease pressure on public health systems and protect individuals who are particularly vulnerable to illness, and so willingly accept temporary limits on their ability to carry out “business as usual.” But doesn’t this open up the possibility that a government could overreach or abuse their power, and limit religious freedom in ways that aren’t justified? Although, under international law and the law of many nations, a state may restrict a civil right in the interests of public safety or welfare, that doesn’t mean this power is unlimited, or that a state is allowed to exercise it in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. ... In the current pandemic, then, any restriction on civil liberties must, in general, be narrowly tailored, directly linked with a legitimate public health goal, implemented in an even-handed manner and be the least restrictive means possible to protect public health. It is, admittedly, a fine line that governments must walk as they attempt to both uphold civil freedoms and act responsibility to protect public health. These are not easy decisions. However, any use of the COVID-19 emergency as a cover to target a particular religious or ethnic minority, or to quash dissenting voices, can never be justified. And further, a sweeping and open-ended suspension of civil rights by a government in ways unrelated to issues of public health also represents a dangerous and illegitimate use of state power. In some places around the world, fears of government overreach are not imaginary dangers but are already being documented. And this (emphases added) : Quote “Our world has seemingly been filled recently with strong wake-up calls,” said Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... When the pandemic hit, congregations of many faiths around the world canceled worship services and other activities to abide by government restrictions for large group gatherings to slow the spread of the coronavirus. “I believe it is vital for us to recognize that the sweeping governmental restrictions that were placed on religious gatherings at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis truly were extraordinary,” Elder Bednar explained. “No other event in our lifetime—and perhaps no other event since the founding of this nation—has caused quite this kind of widespread disruption of religious gatherings and worship.” Four Personal Reflections Elder Bednar offered four personal reflections on the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic: Government power can never be unlimited. Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights. Religious freedom is fragile. In a time of crisis, sensitive tools are necessary to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society. In North America, Elder Bednar pointed out, jurisdictions deemed services related to alcohol, animals and marijuana as essential, while the services of religious organizations were classified as nonessential, even when those activities could be safely conducted. The senior Church leader cited examples in one state where Catholic priests were barred from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites, even if that person did not have COVID-19. In the same state, Latter-day Saints were not allowed to perform baptisms. “The power of government must have limits,” asserted Elder Bednar. He's not wrong. 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: How people have been trying to make it some special attack on religion is quite a bait and switch game to behold. How people indifferent or hostile to religious liberty have been trying to gaslight religious people, telling them their religious liberties are under no threat at all, is also a thing to behold. Thanks, -Smac 3
CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I do think people tire of the complaint that religious liberty is under attack. Alito references Catholic Charities being "under unrelenting attack" for refusing to "allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees." Sounds ominous...maybe. What does he mean by attack? And why is someone's critique of a religious group's decision anything against religious liberty. He then complains "for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated." after citing the Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision out of Colorado and Ralph’s Pharmacy case from Washington state. Both of which stemmed from discrimination by the religious. Somehow the religious decisions to discriminate against others (in the case of the Cakeshop, they want to discriminate against LGBTQ potential customers and Ralph's pharmacy wanted to make a move to withhold from their employees access to certain contraceptives because the owners disagreed with the employees). This does represent a good example of how things get turned around by religion. Somehow they are under attack because they proceeded to make moves to push people out. Saying religions should stop services until the pandemic is over is really just a smart move...it has nothing to do with trying to hurt religion. How people have been trying to make it some special attack on religion is quite a bait and switch game to behold. Like most forms of racism which depress opportunities for people of color, actions that depress religious expression aren’t “trying” to hurt anyone, but they do. I believe very few people are intentionally racist, and I think there is a trend of people –voters-- becoming less racist in that way (DATA ALERT: don’t ask for a graph, find your own!). That in turn will influence legislation and executive orders supportive of racial equity. Very few people are intentionally non-supportive of religious freedom but I think there is a trend of voters becoming more non-supportive, which also influences legislation and support of executive orders. I would like to see comparative data showing the spread of the virus through religious and other venues (both essential and non-essential), and then a comparison on the basis of whether precautions are in place in either set of venues. This would bridge a 3-way gap between those who don’t like religion anyway or think it is too often a vehicle for bigotry; those who think it is the greatest thing ever; and, those who prefer data-driven decisions on a situational basis in either camp. As long as executive orders allowing religious groups to meet are challenged and opposed without this kind of data (the standard for decision-making has to be a bit higher for constitutionally protected freedoms), and as long as the trend continues for voters to become less religious / supportive of religious freedom, we do have a growing problem. Edited November 18, 2020 by CV75
stemelbow Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I think most such "people" are irreligious, and hence do not value or respect the principle of religious liberty, and hence do not perceive or care about threats to it. You're wrong. Everyone cares about religious liberty. It just so happens, as some have pointed out in this thread, religious liberty isn't under attack. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, however, the U.S. Constitution and the decisions construing it have quite a bit to say about religious liberty. Indeed, the worldwide community has a lot to say about religious liberty: Yep. Quite ominous, yes. If the State came along and said that it or your employer could compel you, by force of law, and under threat of punishment (fine and/or imprisonment) to attend religious services on Sunday, to confess that Jesus is Lord, and to sustain Russell M. Nelson as the presiding high priest and prophet, seer and revelator, I think you would find that "ominous." eh...probably not ominous, per se. But again, I prefer religious liberty. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: And you would be right. Well, not a physical attack, obviously. He wasn't speaking of "someone's critique of a religious group's decision." He was speaking of government mandates that compel religious individuals and groups to do and/or say things that violate their religious beliefs. If so, then his concern is even less well-founded then I thought. There are no such mandates. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I get that you don't care if religious people are coerced into violating their religious principles, but I would hope that you could at least understand that we care about such things. I care, for sure. But, of course, no one is coerced into violating their religious principles in these cases. No one is generally in this country. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Yes. Yes. Well, no. And meanwhile, the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission allowed gay bakers to refuse to make cakes that conveyed messages that contravened their views. This happened at least three times. Was that "discrimination" too? Or is it only when religionists do it? Are these three cases involving the bakers' religious views? Or is this a bit of a bait and switch? 1 minute ago, smac97 said: "Discrimination by thee and thine, but not by me and mine," I suppose. I disagree. There is nothing "turned around" in either case. They are "under attack" because they are being compelled by the government, under threat of find and/or imprisonment, to violate their religious beliefs. Nope. Baking a cake for a paying customer is not violating their religious views at all. The wedding shall go on, and they need not marry someone of the same sex. Providing that which is considered health care for their employees is not violating their religious beliefs at all. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Well, it sure is looking that way. Rioters can take over the streets of New York, but Jews can't meet in their synagogue? People can congregate in a gym or an abortion clinic, but not in a church? People can join protests and ignore social distancing guidelines, but they can't meet together to worship God? 48% of Americans thing that in-person religious services should be completely disallowed by the government because of COVID. In Washington State "Gov. Jay Inslee imposed a ban on religious gatherings of any size during the COVID-19 pandemic, even prohibiting two people from meeting together to pray and read scripture and criminalizing all religious gatherings outside of family members." And yet people can gather together for other reasons. To work. To go to the gym. To get an abortion. People traveling to purchase liquor or home repair items is authorized in New York because it's an "essential service," but meeting together in a religious meeting is forbidden. If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did a federal judge issue a temporary restraining order to stop Kentucky Governor Beshear’s attempt to halt in-person worship during the COVID-19 pandemic? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did the Attorney General of Kentucky issue an opinion defending religious schools from state and local officials attempting to prevent them from reopening? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why Maryland Governor Larry Hogan issue an emergency order removing the authority of local health agencies to shut down private, religious schools? If there is no risk to religious liberty, why did law enforcement officers in Greenville, Mississippi issue tickets carrying a $500 fine to members in the church parking lot, sitting in their cars listening to a sermon from their pastor? These are the sorts of things that, I think, Justice Alito had in mind when he spoke of religious liberty becoming a "second-class right." You have the right to get an abortion, or join a protest or a riot, or go to the gym, but you do not have the right to attend religious services. Apparently the vast majority of houses of worship - 90% according to a recent Pew survey, have gone along with these restrictions. However, there is concern, and good reason for it: I agree with this sentiment (emphasis added) : And this (emphasis added) : And this (emphases added) : And this (emphases added) : He's not wrong. How people indifferent or hostile to religious liberty have been trying to gaslight religious people, telling them their religious liberties are under no threat at all, is also a thing to behold. Thanks, -Smac People shall gather and worship again. Do not fret. It's is wise to avoid gathering at all...I am trying to play by the rules. People can worship and practice their religion...just be wise and wait until we're in the clear to gather. Seems like a good move. Religion's aren't being unfairly treated here. No dobut though some stupid things are happening.
stemelbow Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: Like most forms of racism which depress opportunities for people of color, actions that depress religious expression aren’t “trying” to hurt anyone, but they do. I believe very few people are intentionally racist, and I think there is a trend of people –voters-- becoming less racist in that way (DATA ALERT: don’t ask for a graph, find your own!). That in turn will influence legislation and executive orders supportive of racial equity. Very few people are intentionally non-supportive of religious freedom but I think there is a trend of voters becoming more non-supportive, which also influences legislation and support of executive orders. I would like to see comparative data showing the spread of the virus through religious and other venues (both essential and non-essential), and then a comparison on the basis of whether precautions are in place in either set of venues. This would bridge a 3-way gap between those who don’t like religion anyway or think it is too often a vehicle for bigotry; those who think it is the greatest thing ever; and, those who prefer data-driven decisions on a situational basis in either camp. As long as executive orders allowing religious groups to meet are challenged and opposed without this kind of data (the standard for decision-making has to be a bit higher for constitutionally protected freedoms), and as long as the trend continues for voters to become less religious / supportive of religious freedom, we do have a growing problem. Sounds like a tedious move in order to vindicate complaints that someone is upset about religions or something. Just be safe and smart about it. Spreading is happening, likely because people aren't following guidelines and rules. If we were all distanced, keeping meticulously clean, the virus' spread will slow down. Religion will be fine and everyone will get to gather again. I know many can't wait....and that's likely why people are crying religious persecution.
CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Sounds like a tedious move in order to vindicate complaints that someone is upset about religions or something. Just be safe and smart about it. Spreading is happening, likely because people aren't following guidelines and rules. If we were all distanced, keeping meticulously clean, the virus' spread will slow down. Religion will be fine and everyone will get to gather again. I know many can't wait....and that's likely why people are crying religious persecution. Surveillance is tedious? Oh my, whodathot... But actually, not that tedious as public heath surveillance (some jurisdictions, anyway) have this data and it's good to know, whatever camp you fall in to. Standards for safety and smartness evolve in a novel situation such as we have with the pandemic. I'm glad you are not leading public health. But none of what you say here addresses the problem as represented.
stemelbow Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: Surveillance is tedious? Oh my, whodathot... But actually, not that tedious as public heath surveillance (some jurisdictions, anyway) have this data and it's good to know, whatever camp you fall in to. Standards for safety and smartness evolve in a novel situation such as we have with the pandemic. I'm glad you are not leading public health. But none of what you say here addresses the problem as represented. What problem? That people tend to feel picked on? So when something happens that they don't like they feel unfairly targeted? Yeah...I don't know how to address that. If religious people feel picked on all because it's wise to limit contact with others so religion's shouldn't gather for a little while, then I can't help how they feel. Somehow, it seems, some are trying to paint this as if the pandemic hit so people could take opportunity to try and beat up religion. SOunds kind of silly to me. It's wise to distance ourselves, stay clean. Religious services can be easily conducted virtually, until the pandemic is over. No one's out to get you.
CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 43 minutes ago, smac97 said: 48% of Americans thing that in-person religious services should be completely disallowed by the government because of COVID. Too few to prove there's a problem or that that it will go over 50%... but seriously, the link may be the wrong one; it takes me to an economic poll.
CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What problem? I guess you didn't read my post after all -- must have been too tedious (hint: last paragraph) Posted 26 minutes ago
CV75 Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) @smac97 here's the poll re the The AP-NORC Center survey(s) of Americans on their attitudes, behaviors, and concerns related to the virus.: https://apnorc.org/topics/covid-19/ specifically https://apnorc.org/projects/religious-practice-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/ but all sorts of good stuff! Edited November 18, 2020 by CV75
pogi Posted November 18, 2020 Posted November 18, 2020 15 hours ago, kllindley said: Then it will be too late. I don't agree. If evidence ever presents of concerning trends turning around from historic lows, there will still be plenty of time to act before our religious liberty is compromised. All we can do is address clear and specific attacks on religious liberty. We don't need to wait to do that. There is no point in speculation of invisible boogeymen and supposed "trends" with no evidence. We can't do anything about that. There is nothing there to fight. My fear is that these imagined trends that have no evidence will exacerbate an already existing but growing distrust in executive orders which specifically limit religious liberty. In normal times, I would agree that is concerning. I think people have a hard time distinguishing normal times from times which allow the execution of the 10th amendment to protect public health. People are already gathering at the private homes of Governor Herbert and his Leutenant Gov protesting executive orders for masks, with signs saying that "Herbert is not king". People are angry about limiting church gatherings. They are resisting constitutionally protected powers to protect the public. It is dangerous. They are fighting AGAINST the constitution of the USA. I feel like this whole thread is only adding fuel to the existing fire. People can't seem to see the forest through the trees. This is not an attack on religious liberty. This is an attack on the virus and threats against public health. It is temporary. Things always go back to normal. I don't see evidence of any trends outside of the pandemic. This is an isolated exception. We need to allow the 10th amendment to have sway upon the people. I recognize the CV75 and others may not be talking specifically about the pandemic response, but the fears and mistrust they are generating will have a direct effect on how people perceive executive orders during the pandemic which effect religion. IT is already happening. I think our public health is in crisis right now, not our religious liberty. WE should be talking about and addressing those very clear and real trends and how our unsubstantiated fears and attitudes towards executive orders and religious liberty in times of public health emergency might negatively effect response efforts. 1
smac97 Posted November 18, 2020 Author Posted November 18, 2020 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: You're wrong. Everyone cares about religious liberty. And yet here you are, poo-pooing the idea that there is any threat to it. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It just so happens, as some have pointed out in this thread, religious liberty isn't under attack. it just so happens, as others have pointed out and documented in this thread, religious liberty is under attack. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: eh...probably not ominous, per se. But again, I prefer religious liberty. Glad to hear it. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote He wasn't speaking of "someone's critique of a religious group's decision." He was speaking of government mandates that compel religious individuals and groups to do and/or say things that violate their religious beliefs. If so, then his concern is even less well-founded then I thought. There are no such mandates. Yes, there are. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I care, for sure. But, of course, no one is coerced into violating their religious principles in these cases. Yes, they are. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: No one is generally in this country. Tell that to the Jews who can't meet in their synagogue. Or the baker being punished by the state for refusing to speak things he, on religious grounds, did not want to speak. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Are these three cases involving the bakers' religious views? I invite you to read the SCOTUS decision (here's a link), particularly this part (pp. 14-15, 17 of the PDF): Quote At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. See Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X (Mar. 24, 2015). ... As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X, at 4; featured “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4. The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. Also read Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion (starting on page 26), including this bit (on page 29) (comparing the Phillips case to one of the three other cases referenced above): Quote The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the customer was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation). But in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction. So if these other bakers can refuse to decorate cakes that they deem incompatible with their views, why can't Mr. Phillips do the same? The answer, IMO, is . . . because religious liberty is under attack. Mr. Phillips declined to speak what others want to use the coercive power government to force him to speak. He wanted the right to refrain from compelled speech, the same way the three subsequent secular bakers were allowed to refrain. But because Mr. Phillips is a Christian, he was punished. By the bigoted Civil Rights Commission, the same commission that then went to to protected secular refusals of compelled speech. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Or is this a bit of a bait and switch? I had assumed you were familiar with the Masterpiece decision. It seems not. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Quote They are "under attack" because they are being compelled by the government, under threat of find and/or imprisonment, to violate their religious beliefs. Nope. Baking a cake for a paying customer is not violating their religious views at all. As the Catholic sociologist Thomas O’Dea quipped in 1957, “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.” I guess the same holds for the Masterpiece case. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the facts and the law of the case before speaking about it. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The wedding shall go on, and they need not marry someone of the same sex. I quite agree. So why the need to use the coercive power of government to compel someone to speak in favor of "marry[ing] someone of the same sex" if that someone, on religious grounds, disagrees with same-sex marriage? The answer, IMO, is . . . because religious liberty is under attack. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Providing that which is considered health care for their employees is not violating their religious beliefs at all. Again, I invite you to first familiarize yourself with the legal cases being referenced before speaking about them. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) is a good place to start. If you, as an employer, were compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to provide Bibles and Books of Mormon to your employees, you would likely be concerned that your religious liberties are under attack. And you would be correct. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: People shall gather and worship again. Do not fret. I think it's eminently reasonable to speak and work against governmental overreach, particularly where such things imperil religious liberty. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It's is wise to avoid gathering at all...I am trying to play by the rules. So am I. So are the vast majority of religionists. And yet we are also expressing concern about governmental intrusion into religious liberties, which you are claiming does not exist (despite the various examples I have provided). 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: People can worship and practice their religion...just be wise and wait until we're in the clear to gather. Seems like a good move. I agree. But I also think it is important to speak against misuse of governmental authority as pertaining to religious liberty. 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Religion's aren't being unfairly treated here. There are many, many examples of religious groups and individuals being "unfairly treated." 58 minutes ago, stemelbow said: No dobut though some stupid things are happening. Including the government targeting religious gatherings while allowing others. Thanks, -Smac 1
longview Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 On 11/18/2020 at 7:46 AM, stemelbow said: I do think people tire of the complaint that religious liberty is under attack. Alito references Catholic Charities being "under unrelenting attack" for refusing to "allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees." Sounds ominous...maybe. What does he mean by attack? And why is someone's critique of a religious group's decision anything against religious liberty. He then complains "for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated." Here is another perspective that goes a long ways to affirming the wisdom of the Proclamation on the Family - - - 1
stemelbow Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, smac97 said: And yet here you are, poo-pooing the idea that there is any threat to it. Yes, the threat, particularly as described in this thread seems to be imagined. Quote it just so happens, as others have pointed out and documented in this thread, religious liberty is under attack. No. Not that I've seen. The only ones I see mentioned, i addressed and pointed out these examples aren't showing religious liberty is under attack at all. It's imagined. Quote Glad to hear it. Yes, there are. Yes, they are. Tell that to the Jews who can't meet in their synagogue. Again, they will meet soon. It is wise to keep distanced and be safe, not just for each individual but for the rest of us too. Quote Or the baker being punished by the state for refusing to speak things he, on religious grounds, did not want to speak. A baker was punished for refusing to speak about things he did not want to say? Quote I invite you to read the SCOTUS decision (here's a link), particularly this part (pp. 14-15, 17 of the PDF): Also read Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion (starting on page 26), including this bit (on page 29) (comparing the Phillips case to one of the three other cases referenced above): So if these other bakers can refuse to decorate cakes that they deem incompatible with their views, why can't Mr. Phillips do the same? They were deemed derogatory to others. That decision doesn't say anything about religion. It merely pointed out that the bakers were justified because they didn't want to be derogatory to others. Quote The answer, IMO, is . . . because religious liberty is under attack. Mr. Phillips declined to speak what others want to use the coercive power government to force him to speak. He wanted the right to refrain from compelled speech, the same way the three subsequent secular bakers were allowed to refrain. But because Mr. Phillips is a Christian, he was punished. By the bigoted Civil Rights Commission, the same commission that then went to to protected secular refusals of compelled speech. You have over-reacted, it seems to me. In one case the request was to be derogatory to another. In another the baker refused service based on one thing--he didn't want to support other people doing something lawful. Quote I had assumed you were familiar with the Masterpiece decision. It seems not. As the Catholic sociologist Thomas O’Dea quipped in 1957, “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.” I guess the same holds for the Masterpiece case. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the facts and the law of the case before speaking about it. I quite agree. So why the need to use the coercive power of government to compel someone to speak in favor of "marry[ing] someone of the same sex" if that someone, on religious grounds, disagrees with same-sex marriage? No one has used the "coercive power of government to compel someone" to say anything let alone forcing someone to say they support same sex marriage. Quote The answer, IMO, is . . . because religious liberty is under attack. Again, I invite you to first familiarize yourself with the legal cases being referenced before speaking about them. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) is a good place to start. If you, as an employer, were compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to provide Bibles and Books of Mormon to your employees, you would likely be concerned that your religious liberties are under attack. Silly thought. Quote And you would be correct. I think it's eminently reasonable to speak and work against governmental overreach, particularly where such things imperil religious liberty. So am I. So are the vast majority of religionists. And yet we are also expressing concern about governmental intrusion into religious liberties, which you are claiming does not exist (despite the various examples I have provided). I agree. But I also think it is important to speak against misuse of governmental authority as pertaining to religious liberty. There are many, many examples of religious groups and individuals being "unfairly treated." That's a rather vague and too often subjective term. As per the examples in this thread--there is no such truth to the claim that religious people and gropus are being unfairly treated. That appears to be a complete over-reaction, it seems to me. Quote Including the government targeting religious gatherings while allowing others. Thanks, -Smac Again, over-reaction. it simply true we are all better off if religious groups refrain from gathering during this pandemic. They will be able to gather soon enough. No one will stop them. Edited November 19, 2020 by stemelbow
Ahab Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 On 11/13/2020 at 1:48 PM, smac97 said: When the government imposes more restrictions on a constitutionally-protected right (to worship) than on non-constitutionally-protected rights (to gamble in a casino), we are in big trouble. Doesn't look like much of a danger to me, considering: Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship. That to me looks like a slam dunk for religious freedom.
CV75 Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: Doesn't look like much of a danger to me, considering: Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship. That to me looks like a slam dunk for religious freedom. That is one way of looking at it. Do you think such a slam dunk signals an end to such treatment once and for all, including religious speech, business and professional practice, etc.?
smac97 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Posted November 19, 2020 28 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote When the government imposes more restrictions on a constitutionally-protected right (to worship) than on non-constitutionally-protected rights (to gamble in a casino), we are in big trouble. Doesn't look like much of a danger to me, considering: Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship. Are you sure? I haven't been following all these stories closely. But I did see this (dated July 24, 2020) : Quote The Supreme Court ruled late Friday that Nevada can impose tighter restrictions on churches than casinos while a legal dispute over its social distancing policies continues. The 5-4 ruling included dissents from conservative justices who said limiting church gatherings to 50 worshipers while allowing bars, restaurants, casinos and indoor amusement parks to operate at 50% capacity violates freedom of religion. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices in turning aside a challenge from a Nevada church. The same five justices ruled the same way in May, when a California church sought to exceed a 25% capacity threshold under the theory that local businesses were allowed to do so. In that case, Roberts said religious observances are comparable to public assemblies, not secular businesses. In the Nevada case, the five justices in the majority did not explain their ruling. But the dissenting justices wrote 24 pages to complain that churches were not being treated equally with public assemblies, a violation of the First Amendment in their view. "The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance," Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote. "Under the governor’s edict, a 10-screen multiplex may host 500 moviegoers at any time," Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch noted. "A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. "But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshipers – no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all," Gorsuch said. And Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh complained that "the risk of COVID-19 transmission is at least as high at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms as it is at religious services. Indeed, people congregating in restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms often linger at least as long as they do at religious services." ... Kavanaugh wrote that "the basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries." Thoughts? 28 minutes ago, Ahab said: That to me looks like a slam dunk for religious freedom. And yet Nevada nevertheless treated casinos more favorably than houses of worship. And that decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks, -Smac 1
Ahab Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 50 minutes ago, CV75 said: That is one way of looking at it. Do you think such a slam dunk signals an end to such treatment once and for all, including religious speech, business and professional practice, etc.? Of course not. People violate laws and constitutional rights on a regular basis. That is one reason why this country has so many attorneys and judges and court cases.
Ahab Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: Are you sure? I haven't been following all these stories closely. But I did see this (dated July 24, 2020) : Thoughts? And yet Nevada nevertheless treated casinos more favorably than houses of worship. And that decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks, -Smac Okay, well, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides casinos should be treated more favorably than houses of worship then we are pretty much screwed until our Lord comes back or unless we can get the U.S. Supreme Court to change its decision.
smac97 Posted November 19, 2020 Author Posted November 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Okay, well, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides casinos should be treated more favorably than houses of worship then we are pretty much screwed until our Lord comes back or unless we can get the U.S. Supreme Court to change its decision. Or we recognize that religious liberty is under attack, and we work to resist that. Thanks, -Smac
CV75 Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Ahab said: Of course not. People violate laws and constitutional rights on a regular basis. That is one reason why this country has so many attorneys and judges and court cases. Do you think peoples' attitudes (attorneys and judges are people too) toward religious assembly, practice, speech and expression through business/professional practice are becoming more tolerant, less tolerant, or remaining fairly steady (let's say over the next 15 years)? Do you think religiosity has much to do with these attitudes? Edited November 19, 2020 by CV75
Ahab Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Or we recognize that religious liberty is under attack, and we work to resist that. Thanks, -Smac Good luck with that. Fighting the U.S Supreme Court in this country is pretty much like fighting City Hall in every city. We could protest and scream and throw fire bombs at buildings, etc, but still it would be up to our Officials to change their own minds.
Ahab Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: Do you think peoples' attitudes (attorneys and judges are people too) toward religious assembly, practice, speech and expression through business/professional practice are becoming more tolerant, less tolerant, or remaining fairly steady (let's say over the next 15 years)? Do you think religiosity has much to do with these attitudes? People are different. We come in all shapes and sizes and with different opinions. Some are very tolerant on many issues... we call these people liberals... and some are very set in their own way of seeing things... we call these people conservatives. Look around and ask around and you'll find all kinds of people all over the planet. And, no, I don't blame "religiosity" for all of these attitudes. I blame Satan and people who do his will for all of the bad/evil things going on in this world and I give credit for all of the good things to God and those who do his will.
CV75 Posted November 19, 2020 Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: People are different. We come in all shapes and sizes and with different opinions. Some are very tolerant on many issues... we call these people liberals... and some are very set in their own way of seeing things... we call these people conservatives. Look around and ask around and you'll find all kinds of people all over the planet. And, no, I don't blame "religiosity" for all of these attitudes. I blame Satan and people who do his will for all of the bad/evil things going on in this world and I give credit for all of the good things to God and those who do his will. When I said “people’s attitudes” I meant the plural, as in the attitudes of "people in general", and I meant in the context of religious tolerance, not in the notion of there being two kinds of people (those who are flexible in the views and those who are set in their views). Not blame, but at least a basis or a close connection. Good people and groups can still be intolerant toward religion, or support the social trend for such intolerance, out of benign neglect or even unintended ignorance.
Recommended Posts