Further back and forth on this is obviously fruitless.
You will adhere to your interpretation and I will adhere to mine.
However, my interpretation is the one that has hundreds of years of support in United States Constitutional Law.
Free exercise there of=can commit any crime in the name of.
Is there criteria as to what could be called a religion?
Are you equating the right of people to assemble and worship God through trying times as we’re witness to rape, human sacrifice etc?
Do you understand how absurd that sounds?
There was a reason precisely why first Amendment was writing in such a way…so goverment cannot circumvent those basic fundamental rights…in which you’re clearly now advocating.
So how much power do you want to give the states? The police?
2 Likes
An thus the problem with setting precedent in our justice law etc.
Incremental steps until laws of today have no original ties to laws in which they first establishment.
Might as well make em as we go…right?
1 Like
In answer to conan’s last two posts, I will post a link to a post of mine from some time back:
As demonstrated by this post and other posts, I have fought to change the existing jurisprudence to emphasize the Free Establishment Clause and to deemphasize the Establishment Clause. I have fought to abolish the Lemon Test and instead judge laws that may conflict with Free Exercise on a strict scrutiny basis, which would provide a high level of protection for religion, while allowing for the essential operation of the Police Power to occur.
I would interpret the Establishment Clause very narrowly, essentially banning an actual establishment of a church or direct funding of the church by the State.
I would interpret the Free Exercise Clause very broadly.
The Supreme Court in recent years has come much more in line with my own views and religious institutions have done very well.
But I simply cannot endorse the absolutist stance proposed by some.
At times worship of a god has included rape, human sacrifice etc.
Yes I understand all that…but this reminds me old saying about foot in the door. And that is what scares me. They’re still leaving their foot in the door.
And how long will it before other rulings basing it off of this will that door widen?
And now, what do we see? The very same mayors and governors restricting the right to worship, cheering on leftist protests. Apparently Covid can only infect you if you are praying but not if you are looting.
2 Likes
Disturbingly wrong.
Roberts has effectively declared the BOR is nothing more than a suggestion.
That example would only be relevant if they had left Walmart open next door. Pretty sure they would have closed it also.
The First Congress later trimmed that text down to what eventually became the First Amendment. But clearly, the intent is that to constitute a violation of the First Amendment, there must be a patently religious discriminatory purpose. An action taken that does not explicitly target religion is not a violation.
I’d love to see something that actually supports that “interpretation”, not from later courts but from the drafters and arguments made for passage and ratification.
He’s already been a problem…
Do you have any evidence that church goers present more of a risk to spreading disease than Walmart goers?
1 Like
Explain how that makes even a SHRED of sense.
Of course they don’t. They see one as necessary and one as a silly superstition.
1 Like
and yet there they are, still spreading the liberal disease
the earlier draft was rejected. it is meaningless.
the lock down rules are specifically targeted at churches.
1 Like
A lot of differing opinions on this ruling which illustrates why we have the SC.
As I have always said a person will never agree 100% with their decisions. As we see with this ruling the SC judges themselves disagree with each other.
I’ve seen these arguments before and they’re just mind boggling wrong. What you’re talking about doing in this case is not infringing on the rights of anyone. You have a church that chose to be open and a church member that chose to go. No one’s rights are being infringed upon, until government comes along and tells both of them they cannot freely associate.
There are no limits to our Constitutionally protected rights. This is a lie people in power like to preach because if we apply the Constitution properly, it keeps them from gaining more power. Let’s not forget, this was a careful construction to make sure we limited the power of the Federal and State governments and kept the keys to freedom solidly in the hands of the people.
I always hear “Yelling fire” as a limit on the 1st Amendment. It is not illegal to yell fire, it’s illegal to start a riot? Why? Because it impacts the right to life of other citizens. If you go into a theater and yell fire and everyone laughs, will you be charged with a crime? Of course not. It’s not illegal to yell fire.
As to the specific examples you listed:
- Rape is an infringement of the boy’s right to not be harmed by others. It’s not a limit on the 1st Amendment to say you can’t rape, it’s a protection of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- What the hell is an “ultra-orthodox Jewish sect”?
That said, murder is against the law because it infringes on the right to life of a citizen. - See 2.
No, you cannot do anything and everything because actual harm against citizens is prohibited. No one suggested the 1st grants an immunity to police power, we’re simply saying that in a transaction of two consenting adults, so long as there is no victim, the police have (or should have) NO POWER.
2 Likes
