I don’t care. I’m over 65 and it would get me, too. That’s better than locking down everybody.
If you are trying to say that government closing churches for any reason is unConstitutional, it is. Fire is not an analogy for a respiratory virus.
I don’t believe it is unconstitutional. Closing a burning church to the public is not unconstitutional. Closing a church where there is a shooting going on is not unconstitutional. Closing a church when the roof is ready to fall in is not constitutional. ergo closing a church that presents a physical danger to the entrants is not unconstitutional.
Many on the left feel that way. Their thinking is flawed. Hopefully, when this thing is over, with help from the DOJ, stronger measures will be put in place to stop it from happening again.
Well, you’re wrong. The government didn’t close a church. It didn’t close churches in which members were carriers. It closed all churches.
When the Sutherland Springs or White Settlement shootings happened, did your church close? When churches were being bombed in Georgia, did the government close your church?
1 Like
I’m as far from being on the left as anyone can be.
I don’t favor the lockdown. That wasn’t the question. I just don’t think it is unconstitutional.
I think you’re wrong and I’ll keep thinking you’re wrong. Ask any lawyer and he’ll tell you the same. There isn’t anything more I can say about it.
And yet you haven’t been able to explain why. The 1st Amendment does not say “except in cases of…”
How can it not be? We have a constitutional right to “Freedom to Assemble”. When and how was that right revoked and by who? Does a State Governor have the power to override a constitutional right? If so, when was that granted?
As far as buildings go The state has a vested interest , in regulating buildings are safe to enter. That isnt the issue here. They placed the Church off limits. The people are the church, not the buildings.
The 1st amendment does not mention churches. It does not mention closing churches.
It guarantees freedom of worship. Scripture does not mention church buildings. A person can worship in an open field. A family can worship at home.
Dont cherry pick part of the first amendment. Quote it all and that should answer your concern.
I’ll quote what I want to quote. You worry about your own posts.
Sorry to have offended you by using logic.
It does say “the free exercise thereof…” which means I decide how to do it, not the government telling me how I am allowed to do it.
And it doesn’t say “worship”, it says religion.
“Free exercise thereof…”
Free from government intrusion. Free from government imposition, regulation, influence.
Freedom from, not liberty to.
I have many mixed opinions, thoughts and feelings about all this.
On one extreme, consider a superfund site, or Love Canal, or Chernobyl … It’s a health hazard to be there. Real and immediate danger. Stay out.
So by some assessment, the government determined that mingling with people is a real and immediate danger, a public health hazard, a threat to public welfare at large. And (by that assessment) the danger is not only to the individual who wants to participate, but to everyone else they encounter afterward.
Accepting at face value (for the sake of discussion) that the threat is real, then the restrictions are not only for my own good, but for the good of everyone else around me about whom I don’t even give a damn. It’s for the good of society as a whole.
And that’s why the war of words, the war of hearts and minds and opinions has been waged on the true threat at hand. Some say “no threat”. Some say “DIRE THREAT”. Others in between.
At times I lean toward the opinion that the government is over-reaching here. And at differing times I waver between seeing that as a government grab vs mere ignorance by government officials.
At times I accept the panic as a warranted response to the unknown.
I resent the damn mask. Yet I wear it as an act of charity toward those who are paralyzed by the sight of a nostril or the sound of a cough right now.
I get rankled by each new regulation/restriction on churches. “You have to keep a list of all who enter the building…” “No singing allowed during services.” Etc. And then I read more deeply into the restriction and find that it’s not specifically directed at churches, but rather as a general rule for any gathering.
On the flip side, while each restriction has a supporting rationale in and of itself, and each is a requirement usually independent of other requirements, the incrementalism of them all sums to a collective draconian over-reach.
In the end it makes me want to avoid all the discussions and avoid getting wrapped up in all the divisions this thing has created.
Authoritarian High Modernism. Incrementalism is a characteristic.
Government mandates are not charitable.
So you’re cool with selectively violating peoples rights then? Or am I misreading your post?
The state of Mississippi lost your whole argument when they attempted to charge 500 dollar fines for anyone attending a drive in Easter service. The church goers were remaining in their cars. Thus they were social distancing. The only people violating the social distancing were the police forces who were doing the ticketing and threatening the members to leave or receive a fine.
1 Like
OK.
Of course, in that sentence I spoke about what I do as a charitable act. And it was one statement out of a bunch of conflicting thoughts I have about this whole mess.
Absolutely true. In almost all facets of government oozing further and further into our lives.
1 Like
