Kentucky to quarantine anyone attending easter services

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is what it actually says. As long as no law is made (remember incorporation) there is no violation.

It’s not reasonable to interpret “law” as meaning only acts passed by legislatures.

What?
…

Consider this:

1. We have plenty of government “actions”—this will be my umbrella term—that are themselves laws, such as agency regulations, decisions as to how public things will be conducted, and so forth.
2. As an example, consider the hypothetical of a state’s decision not to accept license plates that refer to religion. This might not necessarily be established by a law, but rather by the DMV.
3. The First Amendment says “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”.
4. You’re interpretation would seem to imply that my hypothetical DMV decision is constitutional.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

[Borgia_dude]

@Optrader

@Borgia_dude

@Optrader

Seems to me that the decision to congregate should be with Pastors and his flock with consideration of local circumstances. I don’t believe any Pastor or person WANTS to spread disease, but a one size fits all ruling from the government isn’t right or necessary.

Pastors aren’t the greatest at assessing risks of pandemics. His faith was misplaced.

Virginia pastor dies from coronavirus after vowing to keep church open despite essential business order | Fox News

“I firmly believe that God is larger than this dreaded virus. You can quote me on that,” Glen told his followers, according to the New York Post.

Calling himself “controversial” and “in violation” of safety protocols – with “way more than 10 people” at the church – he vowed to keep his church open “unless I’m in jail or the hospital,” according to the Post.

You didn’t address my post in context. I would bet that almost every poster in this forum has gone out for something not essential. We agree food is essential, but how about the hardware stores or big chain stores like Menards? I have been to places over the last few weeks that were not essential to my life. Have you? Each time I went somewhere I noticed many, and I believe most, were not wearing masks or gloves. Shopping carts were not being disinfected. I just went this past Monday to Walmart and was in there over an hour. While most people (including myself) were practicing social distancing and wearing masks, there were many times that I wasn’t 6 feet from other shoppers.

It isn’t a question of Pastors being any more an expert on pandemics than the “experts”, it’s a question of Pastors and church goers making the same assessments as the people who are being allowed to go to Menards for that “essential” new garden hose, or whatever. If I make a choice to go to Menards ( which I did in fact do this week) I am assessing that the risk to myself is worth what I went to get. If I happen to bump into you while I’m there, what then are YOU doing there but making the same assessment of your risk? It’s MY decision and YOUR decision, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS DECISION!

As I also said, not every area is in the same risk. People can sit in church and maintain social distancing in pews far easier than people in Walmart, especially in small churches and especially if the Pastor is reminding people, watching his flock and encouraging the same behaviours being blared over the loudspeakers in stores.

This pandemic has been great for the left. It hurts Trump while giving the government excuse to take away people’s freedom in the name of security. Benjamin Franklin said “those who give up essential liberty to gain temporary security deserve neither liberty not security.” Perfect way to condition people to accepting more government control over their lives and keeping people from church worship us icing on the cake. This whole scenario fits perfectly into a couple of my threads in the RF.

You might be surprised that we have agreement to a certain extent. I think some states or municipalities have overreached. I just question the wisdom of a church leader, who many look up to, not reinforcing safe practices. Keep in mind, some people might say if the pastor is saying it is ok then… I’d also add that it may be difficult to truly practice social distancing in a church but I admit to not being present during this guy’s services do I don’t know.

One thing we do know, God didn’t protect this pastor in any way. If I were the sort to see God in things I might say that God punishes him for his behavior.

On the bright side JESUS IS COMING BACK SOON !!!

We’ve been heating this for 2000 years. Any time now.

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is what it actually says. As long as no law is made (remember incorporation) there is no violation.

It’s not reasonable to interpret “law” as meaning only acts passed by legislatures.

What?
…

Consider this:

1. We have plenty of government “actions”—this will be my umbrella term—that are themselves laws, such as agency regulations, decisions as to how public things will be conducted, and so forth.
2. As an example, consider the hypothetical of a state’s decision not to accept license plates that refer to religion. This might not necessarily be established by a law, but rather by the DMV.
3. The First Amendment says “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”.
4. You’re interpretation would seem to imply that my hypothetical DMV decision is constitutional.

On what grounds will the regulation be challenged?

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

Does he not use those terms interchangeably?

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

Does he not use those terms interchangeably?

Probably, it’s standard practice. It is incorrect.

Let’s ask him. Hey @Optrader !

[Optrader]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

Does he not use those terms interchangeably?

Probably, it’s standard practice. It is incorrect.

Let’s ask him. Hey @Optrader !

I recognize the difference between liberal in the classic sense and liberal or “lib” used today. I sometimes use them interchangeably but most people don’t know or make that distinction. I know the few here who identify as liberal in the classic sense so when I say liberal here, yes, I am referring to libs and not our classic liberals… I should be more precise to avoid confusion.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Optrader

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

Does he not use those terms interchangeably?

Probably, it’s standard practice. It is incorrect.

Let’s ask him. Hey @Optrader !

I recognize the difference between liberal in the classic sense and liberal or “lib” used today. I sometimes use them interchangeably but most people don’t know or make that distinction. I know the few here who identify as liberal in the classic sense so when I say liberal here, yes, I am referring to libs and not our classic liberals… I should be more precise to avoid confusion.

Was your previous reply (A) to his reply to me (B) including my post (C) in what you were talking about?

---

A:

@Optrader

Most libs aren’t aware of what the constitution says and since they believe it “evolves” they don’t care what it actually does say anyway. They see the constitution as a hindrance to their agenda. Let’s hope Trump gets to appoint at least two more young judges to the Supreme Court.

B:

@WuWei

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is what it actually says. As long as no law is made (remember incorporation) there is no violation.

C:

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

[Optrader]

@Samson_Corwell

@Optrader

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

You aren’t a lib.

Given that Optrader was reply to you replying to me, it seems reasonable that he saw my expressed belief as an instance of a liberal believing in a living constitution who consciously believes the document is a hindrance.

Not liberal, lib. You’re not a lib.

Does he not use those terms interchangeably?

Probably, it’s standard practice. It is incorrect.

Let’s ask him. Hey @Optrader !

I recognize the difference between liberal in the classic sense and liberal or “lib” used today. I sometimes use them interchangeably but most people don’t know or make that distinction. I know the few here who identify as liberal in the classic sense so when I say liberal here, yes, I am referring to libs and not our classic liberals… I should be more precise to avoid confusion.

Was your previous reply (A) to his reply to me (B) including my post (C) in what you were talking about?

---

A:

@Optrader

Most libs aren’t aware of what the constitution says and since they believe it “evolves” they don’t care what it actually does say anyway. They see the constitution as a hindrance to their agenda. Let’s hope Trump gets to appoint at least two more young judges to the Supreme Court.

B:

@WuWei

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is what it actually says. As long as no law is made (remember incorporation) there is no violation.

C:

@Samson_Corwell

Good thing I don’t believe it evolves! And I don’t see it as a hindrance.

I made the same point earlier in the thread in response to a poster who referenced the constitutional separation of church and state.

Since we were on the same page in our response, I just added my comment about the well established lib views regarding the constitution.

I didn’t see any post in this thread regarding your particular views, but then I only skimmed it. When the replies start stretching out into columns of single letters to accommodate multiple responses, I’m prone to do that and I see a lot of your points were in that stretched section… must have missed your points in there.

[WildRose]

You can maintain hygienic and social distancing standards in a church.

[WildRose]

You can live just fine without a lot of things currently deemed “essential”.

[WildRose]

It’s illegal without a permit which is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

A preacher was repeatedly arrested for reading the bible in public to people standing in line outside of a DMV office.

That is oppression by any reasonable definition.

[sikofit]

It’s about time America came to its senses and realized that Cannabis is essential but structured religion is not

[Physics_Hunter]

100,000,000?

Sorry Scott, Christians aren’t evil enough

[Physics_Hunter]

And the parting on the Left, is now parting on the Right…

[WildRose]

The Constitution says otherwise and the AG has warned the governors their policies are in violation.

[Borgia_dude]

@WildRose

You can maintain hygienic and social distancing standards in a church.

I didn’t say one couldn’t.

[sikofit]

@WildRose

The Constitution says otherwise and the AG has warned the governors their policies are in violation.

Barr isn’t going to do a damn thing about Cannabis. It’s a losing move

[Camp]

Strange.

New cases in KY are dropping.