Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
WTF are you blabbering about? That has nothing to do with my post! Knock off the bong!
What purpose does the constitution have if governors can make church illegal
- Thread starter esalla
- Start date
- Status
WTF are you blabbering about? That has nothing to do with my post! Knock off the bong!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Nah when martial law happens they will arrest anyone saying what I am now and throw me in the FEMA camp with the terminally infected to die, just like Russia or North KoreaThe constitution. Got burned decades ago by several incoming presidents,we are in martial law now thanks to trump cause he made it official that the evil fema runs the country now instead of the president,******* traiter
No, you will be placed in the "funny farm" where you apparently belong.
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Constitution?
America has had NO "constitution" since Obama shredded and smoked the original for its hemp content.
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,942
- 1,140
- Banned
- #44
No church buildings have been condemned, only the free right of religion is condemned. Sacraments can not be performed over the internet, not communion anyway. Not as Jesus demonstrated at the last supperYes you can hold church services in a burning building and even with live rattlesnakes
Really
No, you can't. The state has the right to close down a burning building so that no one can enter, same with one that is condemned.
If a state condemned a building do you think a church would have the right to hold services there?
Even better, because personally if a group of people want to willfully off themselves then I'm OK with that. What if a religion felt that they wanted to push that burning building over a cliff over a village below endangering others not belonging to this religion, do they have the right to do that?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
500 message in one week, all telling us what a great job Trump is doing covid. Now you're promoting civil war.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,281
- 2,320
No reason to "redo it". We won.
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,544
- 360
How stupid of you. Most religions are not complaining because their adherents know better. I like what the government of Israel did. There is a city of Orthodox Jews who insisted on attending public gatherings. The Israeli government just said "fine" and simply shut the city off so that no one can leave there. Good show.
Osiris-ODS
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2019
- 3,664
- 3,336
- 1,940
You are not correct.
First of all, you and most other people making similar statements fail to recognize that is there is no "pandemic exception" to the fundamental liberties safeguarded by the Constitution. As several federal courts of appeal have recently emphasized in the present COVID-19 context, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). The protections in the Bill of Rights are always in force to restrain government action, even during a pandemic. And although the Supreme Court has held that the government is authorized to take certain temporary (and I emphasize temporary) action that might limit an individual's liberty interest in the face of an emergency that poses "great danger" to the public, those measures are scrutinized for whether they represent the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish a lawful government purpose, and whether the measures invade fundamental rights secured by the Constitution.
To that end, the Supreme Court mandates that federal courts intervene to strike down such a law "If [the] statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety ... is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law." Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905).
As it applies to the subject at hand, the "Free Exercise Clause" of the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the “right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[],” as well as their right to act on these beliefs through gathering for public worship or through other acts of religious exercise in their daily lives. Empl’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). The test for determining whether a law unconstitutionally invades the First Amendment rights of religious believers or their practices under the Free Exercise Clause, as articulated by the Supreme Court, directs federal courts to “survey meticulously” the text and operation of a challenged law to ensure that it is neutral and of general applicability. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993).
As SCOTUS has explained, a law is not neutral if it treats the same conduct as lawful when undertaken for secular reasons but unlawful when undertaken for religious reasons, or visits “gratuitous restrictions on religious conduct,” among other things. Id. at 533-35, 538. A law is not generally applicable if “in a selective manner it imposes burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief," including by “fail[ing] to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers [its] interests in a similar or greater degree than ... does the prohibited conduct.” Id. at 534.
In other words, under this test, as applied in the COVID-19 context, any state or local law that restricts a citizen's First Amendment right to religious exercise will be stricken down as unconstitutional--even when authorized under emergency powers--where it can be shown that the distinction between nonreligious essential services and religious essential services, as applied under the law, is not both neutral and generally applicable.
That is precisely what happened in Mississippi recently, where the city sent police to issue $500 fines and shut down a drive-in church service which exceeded the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines as congregants were required to remain in their cars with the windows rolled up, while at the same time permitting restaurants to operate which allowed citizens to have their windows rolled down. A federal lawsuit was then filed by the church/attendants, and the DOJ promptly intervened on their behalf citing the above principles. Just last week the city dropped all of the $500 citations it issued, conceding its error in an effort to limit its damages (though that will certainly not eliminate the claims pending against it for its clear violation of federal/constitutional rights).
Last edited:
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Ignorant nonsense.
No one is making church ‘illegal.’
The C19 health and safety protocols are applied to all venues equally, to all religions, faiths, and beliefs equally.
Religious practice is not being prohibited, no specific religion is being targeted for restriction, the health and safety protocols are perfectly appropriate and warranted and in no manner ‘violate’ the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Also wrong.
The First Amendment prohibits government from seeking to preempt or prohibit religious practice based on opposition to that particular religion in an effort to politically disadvantage followers of that religion.
That’s not the case with the C19 health and safety protocols.
All religions are subject to the same guidelines, not just Christianity.
Because the protocols are based on scientific facts and evidence, because they’re appropriate and warranted to safeguard the health and safety of the American people, and because the protocols don’t disadvantage religious expression, the protocols are perfectly Constitutional.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #55
That's about what the FBI said before pissing into the wind publiclyNah when martial law happens they will arrest anyone saying what I am now and throw me in the FEMA camp with the terminally infected to die, just like Russia or North KoreaThe constitution. Got burned decades ago by several incoming presidents,we are in martial law now thanks to trump cause he made it official that the evil fema runs the country now instead of the president,******* traiter
No, you will be placed in the "funny farm" where you apparently belong.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #56
What churches caught the covid and were structurally condemned?No church buildings have been condemned, only the free right of religion is condemned. Sacraments can not be performed over the internet, not communion anyway. Not as Jesus demonstrated at the last supperYes you can hold church services in a burning building and even with live rattlesnakes
Really
No, you can't. The state has the right to close down a burning building so that no one can enter, same with one that is condemned.
If a state condemned a building do you think a church would have the right to hold services there?
Even better, because personally if a group of people want to willfully off themselves then I'm OK with that. What if a religion felt that they wanted to push that burning building over a cliff over a village below endangering others not belonging to this religion, do they have the right to do that?
All you are doing is making up nonsense to fuel your delusions
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Your argument would make sense if they were shutting down the Catholic Churches but letting the Mormon Church stay open.
No one is telling the Churches what they have to preach or dictating dogma... just that you can't gather and spread the disease...
This isn't complicated.
Look, man, you can grovel in front of your imaginary sky man at home...
esalla
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #60
Wrong the constitution allows that all churches be allowed to have services as they see fit. Catholics can not be baptized with fake internet holy water or break the bread of Christ on TV. None of the stay at home orders are legal either, however the deep state is killing tens of thousands who do not obey the master plan
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Are We On the Verge of a Breakthrough on the SAVE America Act?- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
Bessent makes excuses for trump, saying he was glad Mueller is dead- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 26
-
Whoops: Schumer Slips on ICE - Makes Hilarious Mistake While Railing About It
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 5
