For many believers past and present, worshiping together is worth the risk of death and cruel punishments. Perhaps you think it’s stupid and illogical, but it’s been part of human culture way before this virus and will be this way long after.
1 Like
No, I don’t find it stupid being religious myself. I am pretty sure God will find it in himself to ‘forgive’ those that are trying to protect their fellowman a few months of gathering together.
And that’s a fine and logical opinion to have. But the supreme law of the land is the constitution which guarantees these religious rights.
This is simply your opinion. You can read the Gorsuch quote above and see his own explanation about why classifying churches as non-essential violates the 1st Amendment rights of churchgoers.
The vast majority are public. Anybody can come in on Sunday morning. In fact many churches will welcome you because some Christian denominations would love to have new parishioners.
They say they are more than willing to do both.
Also, dirty little secret: here in the heart of lib Texas nobody strictly subscribes to social distancing. They didn’t in Hsinchu, Taiwan, either. The distance falls to less than 6 ft countless times in both nations, ime.
Everybody is wearing masks, though. You can’t enter most businesses or even get on the bus or climb into an Uber without one here. You are free to make your own judgment about the effectiveness of mask wearing, but it has become the norm here in Texas.
Here’s the problem right here:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ,
This is exactly why we need more liberal judges in the Supreme Court. Based on the way the three liberal justices on the Court voted in this case they won’t let impediments like the First Amendment stop them from doing their job.
You can pray at home. You could pray safely. No one is forbidding the religious practice or beliefs. Large gatherings of people in close quarters indoors are the problem.
Even in the old country they have autocinema style religious services. You could do social distancing/physical barriers/masks. The issue here is giving carte blanche to these entities to do as they please no matter the consequences.
Just as they get taxes off and other ways to skip the law, only this time it is immediately deadlier.
BTW religious freedom is not exclusive to the US and it’s Constitution. Most countries have signed in it not only in their own Constitution but also as part of the Covenant of Human Rights for all human beings.
Churches have been shut down for months now. It was never intended to be permanent (see roberts dissenting opinion on this case). They’ve done their part, their 1st Amendment rights were temporarily suspended for months, and now that people are talking about more permanent changes these rights have been restored.
I am pretty dang ecstatic about Trump’s and McConnell’s decision to confirm AC Barrett. I certainly breathe easier about the near-term health of the US Constitution, and am very grateful the GOP put SCOTUS beyond the reach of Democrats for what will likely be decades. Because yeah, Kagan and Sotomayor aren’t going to let a little thing like the 1st Amendment get in their way.
1 Like
Don’t think ‘carte blanche, do as they please’ is the issue in fact.
No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” — Justice Gorsuch
We are on the same side, but don’t count those proverbial chickens before they hatch (re: de cades). In two years, several Republican Senators are up for re-election who are in purple states. Ie., their re-election is not certain, however, the Democrat Senators up for re-election are all in deep-blue states. So in two years we could have the court packing scenario. Obviously, I hope that does not come to pass!
It seems to me the justices are saying that there could be reasonable limitations made on this first amendment right for the sake of public health, but the NYS limitations were not reasonable. Considering some of the other things being allowed now and in recent months, they have a point.
2 Likes
Eh you haven’t watched US news? Them worshippers and their so called leaders are among the worst deniers of the seriousness of taking measures to control the spread of COVID19.
From tv evangelists blowing the virus away -literally- to simply not following the rules -choir practice anyone?- they represent a danger to the most sensitive segments of the population.
And contrary to Taiwan, there are no church hospitals taking patients for free.
Supermarkets slowly have tried their best to comply. But the more people are told it is their right to gather, the more they will do and the longer it will take to get this plague under control. And the more will die or be damaged for life.
Will the churches or the Supreme court stand to defend worshippers when their insurance companies deny them coverage or charge a gazillion zillion for treatment of the sequelae of COVID19?
2 Likes
Public = owned by the public, aka funded by tax payers. Churches are funded by the pockets of the people who worship there, not tax payers, thank god. (no pun intended). Most churches wouldn’t not let me come in but they’re not libraries where every person who walks in has the right to use the space appropriately because that’s what public libraries are for.
Churches don’t pay taxes though, so in a sense they are public in that they’re not contributing to the public funds that pay for roads and schools all while claiming to do all things in the name of the original socialist, Jesus Christ.
public has multiple meanings
I don’t know why people keep parroting on about this. What exactly are you going to tax a church on? Do you want to tax all not for profits or just churches because you don’t like them?
1 Like
No, that’s your issue. The churches and other houses or worship also follow the CDC and State guidelines. This isn’t in yer face jackassery from last summer. This is 25% occupancy or more…less if a breakout occurs.
And honestly every time you write this, I sigh audibly.
Seems you brought your baggage from the old country as well? 
1 Like
Nope you guys have the same issues with mixing religion and politics. Never a good mix. Only gives the powerful a nice excuse to do as they please and accuse whoever stands in their way of being immoral. Call it the Communism of the right.
2 Likes
Well then hypocrites of all colors, but so far, the right has been in charge… and we got a plague!
1 Like
The right has been in charge of what? Disease?
Have you missed the news on the vaccines? Who was “in charge” of that?
1 Like
You know what… the ignorance of the people demanding their freedoms is so intense in some people, it will be hard to find any sympathy if they do eventually get seriously sick or die. I’d even say let em have at it, if not down the fact they will bring it back home to their grandparents and other immunocompromised individuals.
But the Constitution allows it. The right to go maskless, the right to not give correct info for contact tracing, the right to go to church and restaurants to eat, the right to hold a packed rally or protest during a pandemic all while not wearing a mask.
2 Likes
The right was supposed to be in charge of facing the contagion, maybe containing it, not letting it spread, well, like greed.
1 Like