User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 220

Thread: Worship is Essential: President Trump Vows to Override Governors on Religious Liberty

  1. #21
    Points: 174,762, Level: 99
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 2,888
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870666
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,089
    Points
    174,762
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,826
    Thanked 12,929x in 8,807 Posts
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Respectfully, you would be wrong in that respect. Religion is entitled to no restrictions on the free exercise thereof even if same is equally placed on others - b/c of 1A - subject to my discussion below.



    Any attempt to infringe on the 1st Amendment must be met with strict scrutiny upon a compelling governmental interest and the infringement must be the narrowly tailored to the least restrictive means. Thus, it cannot be "reasonable regulation" it must be the least restrictive means possible under a strict scrutiny standard. The burden is on the government to prove all three elements, analyzed under a strict scrutiny test:

    1. is necessary to a "compelling governmental interest"
    2. is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling interest.
    3. the "least restrictive means" possible is being used to achieve that interest.
    The least restrictive means would also include practical considerations like enforceability as well as the government being seen as giving deference to some gatherings versus others. It would be highly impractical for the police to be deployed to houses of worship to ensure that the members of the congregation are maintaining adequate social distancing and/or are all wearing appropriate masks. Furthermore, the non-religious may protest that the government is favoring religious practices i.e. attending church over secular practices such as going to a movie.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  2. #22

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200763
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,033x in 24,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    The least restrictive means would also include practical considerations like enforceability as well as the government being seen as giving deference to some gatherings versus others. It would be highly impractical for the police to be deployed to houses of worship to ensure that the members of the congregation are maintaining adequate social distancing and/or are all wearing appropriate masks. Furthermore, the non-religious may protest that the government is favoring religious practices i.e. attending church over secular practices such as going to a movie.
    I'm sorry, no - enforceability is not the Church's problem. It's a strict scrutiny test - is it or is it not the least restrictive means - STRICTLY SCRUTINIZING SAID MEANS - AND PUTTING ALL BURDENS ON THE GOVERNMENT. We can't but a greater burden on the religious b/c it's easier on the government when there's a less restrictive means that is harder on the government. That would fail the test 100 out of 100 times.

    Also, it is irrelevant that the non-religious complain, the COTUS gives religion that preferential treatment. Period. See: First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Finally, we're going to deploy police in this country to ensure that church members are complying? - I think that would also violate the COTUS. Worshipping under the watchful eye of the government - when it can be done without the watchful eye of the government (i.e. less restrictively).
    Last edited by DGUtley; 05-23-2020 at 10:36 AM.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  3. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (05-23-2020),MMC (05-23-2020),Peter1469 (05-23-2020),pjohns (05-23-2020)

  4. #23
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    I would argue that in terms of the Constitution, "free exercise thereof" implies a free exercise equality such such that no religious faiths have restrictions imposed that are not equally imposed on others.

    State governments have the right and authority to place restrictions on congregation if they have a compelling government interest are doing so in an ‘even-handed’ manner. The banning of congregation in the context of a public health emergency is not specific to religious institutions but part of a general interdiction on public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease. The constitutionality of such public health interventions has been firmly established by SCOTUS. The most relevant decision is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

    "The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.""
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
    The bolded. As I have already said, that is not the current legal standard.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MMC (05-23-2020),pjohns (05-23-2020)

  6. #24
    Points: 64,730, Level: 62
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,820
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Xl's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    196597
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27,967
    Points
    64,730
    Level
    62
    Thanks Given
    6,255
    Thanked 19,792x in 11,974 Posts
    Mentioned
    433 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If governors can shut their state down over something that has killed less than 1 million people worldwide, then they're dictators. Does the Constitution allow for a dictator? Honestly, and I hate to say it, but the Constitution left too much wiggle room for tyranny.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to The Xl For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (05-23-2020)

  8. #25
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I'm sorry, no - enforceability is not the Church's problem. It's a strict scrutiny test - is it or is it not the least restrictive means - STRICTLY SCRUTINIZING SAID MEANS - AND PUTTING ALL BURDENS ON THE GOVERNMENT. We can't but a greater burden on the religious b/c it's easier on the government when there's a less restrictive means that is harder on the government. That would fail the test 100 out of 100 times.

    Also, it is irrelevant that the non-religious complain, the COTUS gives religion that preferential treatment. Period. See: First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Finally, we're going to deploy police in this country to ensure that church members are complying? - I think that would also violate the COTUS. Worshipping under the watchful eye of the government - when it can be done without the watchful eye of the government (i.e. less restrictively).
    The COTUS doesn’t give anything.
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  9. #26

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200763
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,033x in 24,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Private Pickle View Post
    The COTUS doesn’t give anything.
    You mean BOR - True. Recognizes.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  10. #27
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    You mean BOR - True. Recognizes.
    I mean both. The Constitution creates the government but also limits it's power.

    As you said, the BOR does not give anything. Least of all preferential treatment to the religious.
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  11. #28
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,650
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Xl View Post
    If governors can shut their state down over something that has killed less than 1 million people worldwide, then they're dictators. Does the Constitution allow for a dictator? Honestly, and I hate to say it, but the Constitution left too much wiggle room for tyranny.
    The Constitution would work fine if we bothered to follow it.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    pjohns (05-23-2020)

  13. #29
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Not all of the faithful are physically capable of attending services. Being freely permitted to do something does not imply an equality of capability.
    Churches in small towns don't seem to have that problem. The same can be said for Mosques.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  14. #30
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    I would argue that in terms of the Constitution, "free exercise thereof" implies a free exercise equality such such that no religious faiths have restrictions imposed that are not equally imposed on others.

    State governments have the right and authority to place restrictions on congregation if they have a compelling government interest are doing so in an ‘even-handed’ manner. The banning of congregation in the context of a public health emergency is not specific to religious institutions but part of a general interdiction on public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease. The constitutionality of such public health interventions has been firmly established by SCOTUS. The most relevant decision is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

    "The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.""
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
    5 Victories Defending Religious Freedom Against Government Overreach During COVID-19 …...

    The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unfamiliar situations for many people, including government officials. And while many actions to protect public health have been necessary, that does not erase our constitutional rights. ADF stands at the ready to work with government officials to uphold our rights during these challenging times. But when government officials double down on their unconstitutional policies, legal action needs to be taken.


    As the economy gradually begins to reopen, ADF will continue to monitor regulations across the country to ensure that the rights of churches and religious ministries are protected......snip~


    https://www.adflegal.org/blog/5-vict...=10011956_r250


    It appears Jacobson vs Massachusetts isn't doing so well.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    pjohns (05-23-2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts