SCOTUS Justice Alito: "Religious Liberty Is In Danger Of Becoming A Second-Class Right"

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Given your not having read the opinions themselves, while, certainly, you are entitled to your views, it would seem that you lack adequate grounding to criticize those opinions.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the thing is, it's not your call to make what is vital to the practice of someone else's religion and what is not.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but, again, it's not your call to make what constitutes an acceptable opportunity to practice someone else's religion and what does not.

Okay.  Do you see any difference between churches, on the one hand, and a casino, a pot shop, an entertainment venue, and so on, ad infinitum and, potentially, ad nauseam, on the other hand?

I sense that someone is about to take a flamethrower to a large number of straw men.

Yep.  Sure enough.  There's a straw man.

By golly, there's another one!

And yet another one!  

Dozens of deaths from COVID-19 in a church?  Front page!  Above the fold!  First edition!

Dozens of deaths from COVID-19 anywhere else?  (Like at a pot shop, a casino, or an entertainment venue.)  Last page, last column, last edition of the day (conviently, after everyone has already bought a newspaper and figure they've already seen all of the "truly-newsworthy news"; as it were, anyway: Yes, I know no one gets his news from the newspaper anymore, but, still, the analogy holds.

Quite so.  I don't know anybody who's arguing that it does.

Nobody's asking for license to pack into churches like sardines.  It does seem incongruous, however, for the government to place more draconian restrictions on religion than on casinos, on pot shops, or on entertainment venues.

I know they're boring.  (Hell, if anyone knows how boring court opinions are, it's me: I've read thousands of them! )  But you really should read the opinion.  It's per curiam, by the way, and that, alone, speaks volumes.

I am truly sorry that you have not been able to worship for the past 9 months.  

 

I haven't been able to do a LOT of things during the last 9 months.  But fortunately, I have been able to have a relationship with God.  My ability to worship is not dependent on a building or other people.   I guess I am one of the lucky ones.

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by california boy

[kllindley]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difference is that governors have no power to place restrictions on religious gatherings beyond the pandemic/public health emergencies.  It is temporary. We are safe beyond the pandemic.  There is no chance of any restrictions beyond public health measures.  The same can't be said for racism.   

I sincerely fear that other things will be declared "public health emergencies" in other to justify continued infringement on religious views that leaders and governments find undesirable. I just don't think that we are that far away from this anyway. While I actually support restrictions in public worship in the face of this pandemic, I also believe they will lead to additional efforts to suppress religious liberty.  Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows. I hope I am wrong; I really do. But I'm not optimistic. 

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I sincerely fear that other things will be declared "public health emergencies" in other to justify continued infringement on religious views that leaders and governments find undesirable. I just don't think that we are that far away from this anyway. While I actually support restrictions in public worship in the face of this pandemic, I also believe they will lead to additional efforts to suppress religious liberty.  Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows. I hope I am wrong; I really do. But I'm not optimistic. 

The people wouldn't stand for it.  No court would uphold it.  Religious liberty is too popular, even on the left.  Either way, the only way it could have any lasting effect is if the made-up emergency was continuous and without end.  Also, the supreme court just ruled in favor of equitable treatment for religious gatherings during declared emergencies.  No governor could declare a public health emergency and only target restrictions on churches without equitable restrictions on other venues and industries.  We have protections ordered from the highest court now. 

I am optimistic about religious liberty.  I understand the need to keep up our guard, but I am optimistic.  Until a true enemy and villain appears, there is nothing really to fight/guard against.  We address the issues as they arise.  That is all we can really do...along with promoting religiosity in general through being friendly good neighbors.  The best thing religion can do to win over attitudes is to be friendly and civil even in the face of attack.  Love our enemies.  Speak no guile, etc. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by pogi

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

The people wouldn't stand for it.  No court would uphold it.  Religious liberty is too popular, even on the left.  Either way, the only way it could have any lasting effect is if the made-up emergency was continuous and without end.  Also, the supreme court just ruled in favor of equitable treatment for religious gatherings.  No governor could declare a public health emergency and only target restrictions on churches without equitable restrictions on other venues and industries.  We have protections ordered from the highest court now. 

 

 

Unless the public health emergency directly related to religious teachings, say against abortion or same-sex behavior. 

[kllindley]

Just now, kllindley said:

Unless the public health emergency directly related to religious teachings, say against abortion or same-sex behavior. 

But like you say, thank goodness for the current make up of the Supreme Court. For as long as it lasts. 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But like you say, thank goodness for the current make up of the Supreme Court. For as long as it lasts. 

True.  However a made up public health emergency that had no end and only targeted religious gatherings would be so egregious that an all left court would rule against it.  Nor would the people stand for it.  It simply wouldn’t work.  Religious liberty (and specifically the right to gather to worship as a congregation) is too popular, even with the left. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by pogi

[kllindley]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

True.  However a made up public health emergency that had no end and only targeted religious gatherings would be so egregious that an all left court would rule against it.  Nor would the people stand for it.  It simply wouldn’t work.  Religious liberty (and specifically the right to gather to worship as a congregation) is too popular, even with the left. 

I wasn't talking about gathering.  

I'm glad you have more faith in the system than the apostles. I'm sure you are right and they don't know what they are talking about. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by kllindley

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am truly sorry that you have not been able to worship for the past 9 months.

The issue is whether the government should be able to dictate religious practice, especially when, as here, the government says, essentially, "Yes, yes.  We're all in this together, so, casinos, fitness clubs, entertainment venues, and so on, here are some restrictions by which you must abide.  And churches, here are some [more onerous, indeed, unduly onerous] restrictions by which, First Amendment and Free Exercise guarantees notwithstanding, you must abide." 

The issue is not whether the government ought to be able to impose any restrictions.  Clearly, States are within their rights under the police power (that is, the power to regulate health, safety, and welfare) to curtail public activities for the sake of stemming the spread of the virus.  Rather, it is whether the government should be able to impose stricter, more onerous restrictions on religious activity than it does on activity at casinos, fitness clubs, entertainment venues, and so on.  Your analysis makes sense only if we discard the special protections that, putatively, are afforded religion in the First Amendment.

Quote

I haven't been able to do a LOT of things during the last 9 months.

Indeed, I believe all of us are looking forward to the day when our day-to-day lives are not so heavily dictated in almost every particular by this virus.

Quote

 But fortunately, I have been able to have a relationship with God.

And that is commendable.  I laud it.  And I, along with a great many of the Latter-day Saints, am able to say the same.  But again, the issue is to what degree government, even in such spartan times as these, ought to be able to dictate religious practice.

Quote

 My ability to worship is not dependent on a building or other people.  I guess I am one of the lucky ones.

And again, that is commendable.  I laud it.  To a great extent, I share that point of view.  But, again, it skirts the central issue of whether government ought to be allowed to single out religion for more onerous treatment for the sake of stemming the spread of the virus.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

I sincerely fear that other things will be declared "public health emergencies" in other to justify continued infringement on religious views that leaders and governments find undesirable. I just don't think that we are that far away from this anyway. While I actually support restrictions in public worship in the face of this pandemic, I also believe they will lead to additional efforts to suppress religious liberty.  Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows. I hope I am wrong; I really do. But I'm not optimistic. 

Why do you sincerely fear this? Who is trying to make you afraid?

There are lots of things that are worth genuine fear but pandemic restrictions becoming permanent are not one of them.

[The Nehor]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:20 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

If religious groups being able to follow the same covid restrictions as secular groups (which as per the SCOTUS submission is all they wanted) is going to lead to a large increase in cases, then clearly the restrictions on the secular groups weren't strict enough.

Speaking for myself you are preaching to the choir here.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The issue is whether the government should be able to dictate religious practice, especially when, as here, the government says, essentially, "Yes, yes.  We're all in this together, so, casinos, fitness clubs, entertainment venues, and so on, here are some restrictions by which you must abide.  And churches, here are some [more onerous, indeed, unduly onerous] restrictions by which, First Amendment and Free Exercise guarantees notwithstanding, you must abide." 

The issue is not whether the government ought to be able to impose any restrictions.  Clearly, States are within their rights under the police power (that is, the power to regulate health, safety, and welfare) to curtail public activities for the sake of stemming the spread of the virus.  Rather, it is whether the government should be able to impose stricter, more onerous restrictions on religious activity than it does on activity at casinos, fitness clubs, entertainment venues, and so on.  Your analysis makes sense only if we discard the special protections that, putatively, are afforded religion in the First Amendment.

Indeed, I believe all of us are looking forward to the day when our day-to-day lives are not so heavily dictated in almost every particular by this virus.

And that is commendable.  I laud it.  And I, along with a great many of the Latter-day Saints, am able to say the same.  But again, the issue is to what degree government, even in such spartan times as these, ought to be able to dictate religious practice.

And again, that is commendable.  I laud it.  To a great extent, I share that point of view.  But, again, it skirts the central issue of whether government ought to be allowed to single out religion for more onerous treatment for the sake of stemming the spread of the virus.

So this is an all or nothing proposition.  Even though you acknowledge that people have still been able to worship, they should be allowed to do anything they want in a health crisis even if it endangers the public to the point of spreading of a deadly virus.

 

Yeah people are going to love this stance and feel that religion is a good thing for the public interest.  Can't seen any possible negative outcome from this stance.  Go for it.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, kllindley said:

I sincerely fear that other things will be declared "public health emergencies" in other to justify continued infringement on religious views that leaders and governments find undesirable. I just don't think that we are that far away from this anyway. While I actually support restrictions in public worship in the face of this pandemic, I also believe they will lead to additional efforts to suppress religious liberty.  Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows. I hope I am wrong; I really do. But I'm not optimistic. 

One of the most offensive stances those on the far right make is that the"left" cares nothing for religion.  It is saying that if you are on the left, then you have no morals, no belief in God.  No desire to follow His will.  If a person is a Deomcrat then surely they care nothing for religion.  

This only contributes to the belief that if you believe in a lot of the left's positions like taking better care of the poor, giving people medical coverage to protect them when they are sick, more equality in the rich paying their fair share of taxes, then there is no room for you in religion.  You can't be religious if you are a Democrat. 

So people leave organized religion to pursue what they feel is a better and kinder path.

[california boy]

On 11/28/2020 at 12:20 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

If religious groups being able to follow the same covid restrictions as secular groups (which as per the SCOTUS submission is all they wanted) is going to lead to a large increase in cases, then clearly the restrictions on the secular groups weren't strict enough.

You speak for me as well.  THIS is the problem.  it wasn't that religion was restricted too much, it was other large  groups were not restricted enough.  Religion should have been pushing for large groups to be more restricted rather than pushing for their right to join the out of control gatherings. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by california boy

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't understand where you are coming from half the time.  I don't know what you are talking about.  You seem to be weaving some kind of web with this comparison to racism that doesn't have anything to do with the scope of what I am talking about.  You seem to be broadening the scope of my comments beyond what I have said.  I am strictly talking about religious liberty in relation to the pandemic.  Those restrictions are temporary.  No lasting harm.  The response to the pandemic is not changing public opinions about religious liberty.  You have no evidence of that.   You can talk about the broader problem all you want.  I don't have any argument there.  Look, I love religious liberty.  I am all for it.  My only point is that there is absolutely no evidence that the response to the pandemic, even if it has been inequitable in certain incidents, is souring public opinion or attitudes in general towards religious liberty.  That is nonsense.  You have nothing to stand on.  

I am not saying that the response to the pandemic is changing public opinion about religious liberty (a long-preexisting trend). You keep asking me to provide evidence for something I am not proposing. Talk about having nothing to stand on!

I am saying the stresses of the pandemic have shined a light on these attitudes. To draw a comparison, they have also put a spotlight on systemic racism (as evidenced by COVID-19 related health disparities among minorities) and public attitudes about that. There are parallels in the kinds of arguments used to minimize the concerns expressed in both areas.

I think temporary restrictions are fine, but inequitable application of temporary restrictions is not fine and sets the stage for lasting harm when minimized and excused. The tactically-oriented will focus on fixing the immediate (and hopefully) temporary emergency, but will overlook the milieu and long-term considerations. I used the NIMS as an example of how these perspectives are coordinated for a better overall emergency response and recovery, improved preparedness and mitigation going forward, etc.

To make another comparison: a temporary spike in pandemic death rates is understandable with a novel virus, and the curve will ultimately flatten one way or another. It is not fine when these temporary death rates are inequitably higher in minority races and not called out because they gain acceptance and he underlying problematic trends gain momentum. That is the case for protecting religious freedom.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

One of the most offensive stances those on the far right make is that the"left" cares nothing for religion.  It is saying that if you are on the left, then you have no morals, no belief in God.  No desire to follow His will.  If a person is a Deomcrat then surely they care nothing for religion.  

That is absolutely not what I said. I don't even know how you got that from what I wrote. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So this is an all or nothing proposition.  Even though you acknowledge that people have still been able to worship, they should be allowed to do anything they want in a health crisis even if it endangers the public to the point of spreading of a deadly virus.

 

Yeah people are going to love this stance and feel that religion is a good thing for the public interest.  Can't seen any possible negative outcome from this stance.  Go for it.

You keep on attributing positions to me that I do not hold, as well as attributing things to me that I did not say.  I will leave you to that.  I see no need to dialogue with you further.  Perhaps you would understand better why I agree with the opinions (per curiam, in one case, by the way: that's significant, and should not be overlooked) if you ... oh, I dunno  ... actually read them, perhaps?  But, I will leave you to your ignorance.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why do you sincerely fear this? Who is trying to make you afraid?

There are lots of things that are worth genuine fear but pandemic restrictions becoming permanent are not one of them.

The restrictions are temporary. The problem is when they are also inequitable and people acquiesce to it for any number of excuses. When inequities are not challenged, even when they are mild, unintentional or part of the learning curve, society becomes that much more groomed for less-urgent, less-temporary and more-restrictive actions.

[kllindley]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why do you sincerely fear this? Who is trying to make you afraid?

There are lots of things that are worth genuine fear but pandemic restrictions becoming permanent are not one of them.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that I fear pandemic restrictions becoming permanent.  Looking back at what I wrote, I still don't see that. However, I apologize that I was not clearer. 

I am talking about people becoming more comfortable with administrative mandates and executive action in behalf of the "greater good." Even when those actions might also unfortunately clash with religious liberty. I mentioned in a later comment that especially around abortion and LGBT issues, this is already an emerging trend. I have seen legislators advocate executive action from the Biden administration to push the Equality Act even if the legislature cannot get it passed. As currently written, the Equality Act offers no caveats for Religion and religious organizations. Now, certainly, I have hope that the current Supreme Court would see the blatant unconstitutionality of that law. I have serious doubts that without Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett that would be true.  Will Biden-Harris nominate additional Supreme Court Justices to correct their disadvantage? Maybe not if Republicans maintain the majority in the Senate. 

I get that you may not see this as a real risk, but in my social circles, this is exactly what many on the left want to happen.  I feel a little validated when Apostles voice warning of threats to religious liberty. Hopefully they are as mistaken as I am and you are right that there are no threats. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am not saying that the response to the pandemic is changing public opinion about religious liberty (a long-preexisting trend). You keep asking me to provide evidence for something I am not proposing.

Just like the "trend" in executive orders, right?  Do you have any evidence of negative and long pre-existing trends in opinions about religious liberty?

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think temporary restrictions are fine, but inequitable application of temporary restrictions is not fine and sets the stage for lasting harm when minimized and excused.

Who is excusing it?  I have always maintained that isolated incidents should be fought in court, but that the general attack on restrictions of church gatherings, or demanding that they be considered "essential", thus preserving their ability to gather while other businesses are shut down in a pandemic is outrageous.  I may be minimizing it relative to your response and others, but I am not suggesting that the suits are without merit.  All I am really doing is contextualizing the intervention.  No harm in that.  Attitudes like mine will have no lasting negative consequence on religious freedom despite your accusations of me setting some imagined stage for lasting harm by "minimizing" it. 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, kllindley said:

I wasn't talking about gathering.  

I'm glad you have more faith in the system than the apostles. I'm sure you are right and they don't know what they are talking about. 

I haven't seen any apostle express the same fears of governors using made up public health emergencies to restrict churches from gathering. 

Elder Bednar's concerns were very different from your's expressed here.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

That is absolutely not what I said. I don't even know how you got that from what I wrote. 

This part.

Quote

 Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows.

 

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't seen any apostle express the same fears of governors using made up public health emergencies to restrict churches from gathering. 

Elder Bednar's concerns were very different from your's expressed here.  

You continue to falsely attribute to me something I didn't say. Not cool. 

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

This part.

 

So there are no religious beliefs or practices that the left (speaking generally) find distasteful and unworthy of constitutional protection? 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Just like the "trend" in executive orders, right?  Do you have any evidence of negative and long pre-existing trends in opinions about religious liberty?

Who is excusing it?  I have always maintained that isolated incidents should be fought in court, but that the general attack on restrictions of church gatherings, or demanding that they be considered "essential", thus preserving their ability to gather while other businesses are shut down in a pandemic is outrageous.  I may be minimizing it relative to your response and others, but I am not suggesting that the suits are without merit.  All I am really doing is contextualizing the intervention.  No harm in that.  Attitudes like mine will have no lasting negative consequence on religious freedom despite your accusations of me setting some imagined stage for lasting harm by "minimizing" it. 

Yes, I certainly do have evidence, but I am satisfied with having stopped your tenacious pestering for evidence of things I did not propose.

I know we have threads that include discussions about public opinion towards religion and religious freedom in the board archives, long before and fairly close to the pandemic. I'm sure you have seen them; my advice is to stick with the more nonpartisan, centrist surveys. The erosion of support for religion and religious liberty has also been acknowledged throughout this thread, including as an argument that the religious have shot themselves in the foot.

What you are describing (I bolded it) is a strictly tactical contextualization of the problem and interventions. This is probably what contributes to your attitude toward strategic forecasts from the trends as “some imagined stage.” I do not mean to sound like I am accusing you personally of anything, but I am critiquing your ideas as presented, and the strict reliance upon a tactical approach.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

So there are no religious beliefs or practices that the left (speaking generally) find distasteful and unworthy of constitutional protection? 

Am I reading this question right?  Do you think anyone on the left does not value any religious rights?  Just because their religious beliefs are different than yours?  That they find nothing distasteful in their religious views on gay rights and abortion doesn't mean they are not religious.

News to you.  The left supports freedom of religion and many of them are indeed just as religious as you are.