What purpose does the constitution have if governors can make church illegal

[esalla]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simply stand up to them. They will back down.

Democrats are essentially cowards.

 

[esalla]

Simply stand up to them. They will back down.

Democrats are essentially cowards.

No one will currently do that because the hit men now have viruses instead of guns and ammo

 

[OldLady]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

Yeah, it's awful how the government is pulling down all those online church services, isn't it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simply stand up to them. They will back down.

Democrats are essentially cowards.

No one will currently do that because the hit men now have viruses instead of guns and ammo

You don't need hit men. Simply catch them in front of cameras and de-pants them with their own nonsense.

 

[Crick]

A few points:
1) If a threat was phoned in that a bomb had been planted inside a church, would you argue that the police lacked the authority to prevent people from entering?
2) What is the difference between sitting in pews listening to someone standing before you delivering a lecture and sitting in some other location that allows 6 feet of space between you and perhaps using electronics to hear the sermon?
3) Do you believe your god will punish you for temporarily worshiping them in some other arrangement until the pandemic is ended?
4) Do you believe your faith will not survive alternative arrangements for worship during the pandemic?
5) Do you have any reason to believe these orders not to congregate originate in a hostility to organized religion and not a desire to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease? If so, I would very much like to hear it.

 

[esalla]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

Yeah, it's awful how the government is pulling down all those online church services, isn't it?

The constitution specifies that anyone may practice their religion as they see fit.

So yes online church services are an awful violation of the constitution

Got that old woman?

 

[Lysistrata]

I can't believe that somebody is trying to pull off the "religious persecution" bit again. Most religions aren't complaining. It's just the same morons who usually whine; the theatrical ones who like to put on a show.

 

[esalla]

A few points:
1) If a threat was phoned in that a bomb had been planted inside a church, would you argue that the police lacked the authority to prevent people from entering?
2) What is the difference between sitting in pews listening to someone standing before you delivering a lecture and sitting in some other location that allows 6 feet of space between you and perhaps using electronics to hear the sermon?
3) Do you believe your god will punish you for temporarily worshiping them in some other arrangement until the pandemic is ended?
4) Do you believe your faith will not survive alternative arrangements for worship during the pandemic?
5) Do you have any reason to believe these orders not to congregate originate in a hostility to organized religion and not a desire to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease? If so, I would very much like to hear it.

The constitution specifies that anyone may practice their religion as they see fit.


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press , or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .

 

[Crick]

One other point. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". The delineation of emergency powers granted to the state's governors makes no distinction regarding religion. Therefore, they do not violate the First Amendment. Were the laws changed so that religious facilities were protected from the exercise of emergency powers, that exclusion WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[esalla]

I can't believe that somebody is trying to pull off the "religious persecution" bit again. Most religions aren't complaining. It's just the same morons who usually whine; the theatrical ones who like to put on a show.

Most religions are not complaining because they are in fear of the virus toting hit men

 

[esalla]

One other point. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". The delineation of emergency powers granted to the state's governors makes no distinction regarding religion. Therefore, they do not violate the First Amendment. Were the laws changed so that religious facilities were protected from the exercise of emergency powers, that exclusion WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press , or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .

The emergency power is a law, handed down by a dictatorial governor

 

[progressive hunter]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

so far all theyve done is suggest it,,,there will be a lot of law suits coming and they will be put in their place,,,

 

[Crick]

A few points:
1) If a threat was phoned in that a bomb had been planted inside a church, would you argue that the police lacked the authority to prevent people from entering?
2) What is the difference between sitting in pews listening to someone standing before you delivering a lecture and sitting in some other location that allows 6 feet of space between you and perhaps using electronics to hear the sermon?
3) Do you believe your god will punish you for temporarily worshiping them in some other arrangement until the pandemic is ended?
4) Do you believe your faith will not survive alternative arrangements for worship during the pandemic?
5) Do you have any reason to believe these orders not to congregate originate in a hostility to organized religion and not a desire to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease? If so, I would very much like to hear it.

The constitution specifies that anyone may practice their religion as they see fit.

It does not. Numerous religious practices are legally proscribed: bigamy, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, rituals involving illegal drugs, etc, etc etc. The purpose of the First Amendment is not to specify what the resident of this nation can do, but what the government cannot. The First Amendment restricts Congress from making laws that respect or prohibit religious practices. What law do you believe is doing that?


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press , or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .
[/QUOTE]

 

[progressive hunter]

One other point. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". The delineation of emergency powers granted to the state's governors makes no distinction regarding religion. Therefore, they do not violate the First Amendment. Were the laws changed so that religious facilities were protected from the exercise of emergency powers, that exclusion WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

I dont see except when emergency powers are imposed in the 1st A,,,

 

[esalla]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

so far all theyve done is suggest it,,,there will be a lot of law suits coming and they will be put in their place,,,

Their suggestions are being treated like law as summonses are being handed out for the violations of law

 

[Crick]

One other point. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". The delineation of emergency powers granted to the state's governors makes no distinction regarding religion. Therefore, they do not violate the First Amendment. Were the laws changed so that religious facilities were protected from the exercise of emergency powers, that exclusion WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press , or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .

The emergency power is a law, handed down by a dictatorial governor

That is incorrect in every regard. State emergency powers are specified in laws passed by state congresses and signed by their governors into law. They were extant in every state long before this emergency arose.

 

[progressive hunter]

? The constitution is no longer worth the paper that it is written on.

Time for a real hot and nasty civil war or as it be end to religious persecution

so far all theyve done is suggest it,,,there will be a lot of law suits coming and they will be put in their place,,,

Their suggestions are being treated like law as summonses are being handed out for the violations of law

like I said,, there will be lawsuits coming,,,

 

[esalla]

A few points:
1) If a threat was phoned in that a bomb had been planted inside a church, would you argue that the police lacked the authority to prevent people from entering?
2) What is the difference between sitting in pews listening to someone standing before you delivering a lecture and sitting in some other location that allows 6 feet of space between you and perhaps using electronics to hear the sermon?
3) Do you believe your god will punish you for temporarily worshiping them in some other arrangement until the pandemic is ended?
4) Do you believe your faith will not survive alternative arrangements for worship during the pandemic?
5) Do you have any reason to believe these orders not to congregate originate in a hostility to organized religion and not a desire to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease? If so, I would very much like to hear it.

The constitution specifies that anyone may practice their religion as they see fit.

It does not. Numerous religious practices are legally proscribed: bigamy, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, rituals involving illegal drugs, etc, etc etc. The purpose of the First Amendment is not to specify what the resident of this nation can do, but what the government cannot. The First Amendment restricts Congress from making laws the respect or prohibit religious practices. What law do you believe is doing that?


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press , or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances .

[/QUOTE]
Then by your definition no state government has the authority to ban church services

Dude you are really weird

 

[Crick]

One other point. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ". The delineation of emergency powers granted to the state's governors makes no distinction regarding religion. Therefore, they do not violate the First Amendment. Were the laws changed so that religious facilities were protected from the exercise of emergency powers, that exclusion WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment.

I dont see except when emergency powers are imposed in the 1st A,,,

What do you mean by emergency powers imposed in the First Amendment?