Supreme Court definitively puts an end to church appeals of COVID-19 orders

The First Amendment has NEVER been interpreted in an absolutist black and white way, nor should it be.

If your interpretation was to prevail, Free Exercise would prevail over the Police Power in every case.

Lets see where that would take us.

Catholic Priest wants to rape an alter boy. Check.

An Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect decides they want to sacrifice a burnt offering. Check.

A pagan church decides they want to sacrifice a young virgin upon the alter. Check.

If it is done in the name of religion, your interpretation would grant carte blanch to anything and everything.

The First Amendment was intended to check the Federal Government (and by incorporation in 1868 the several State Governments) from deliberately targeted particular religions are promoting a State Religion.

The First Amendment does NOT provide churches or religions absolute immunity from the Police Power.

If you don’t like this situation, your only alternative is to express your displeasure at the ballot box and attempt to obtain a Legislature and Executive that will respond to the pandemic in a manner you feel is appropriate.

1 Like

Argumentum ad absurdem

Raping an alter boy is not expression of religion.

Stop.

Show me “police power” in the Constitution.

2 Likes

What about peaceably protesting in a park after it’s closed? If you get a ticket, unconstitutional, right?

Geez, just stay home a little longer. I’m sure everybody’s churches are broadcasting sermons over the internet somehow. And you can just mail in any tithings.

:rofl: Tell it to the looters.

3 Likes

Holy batman…I can’t believe what I just read @Safiel

1 Like

But sacrifcing a virgin clearly is in some religions. Animal sacrifice is currently practiced.

And I was merely pointing out the logical extremes. Criminal activities in religion are common. Scientology is a ******* criminal racket. Many things could be protected by a ridicoulous expansive reading of the First Amendment.

And if you want to go for absurdity, your bolded statement is as absurd as it gets. No reasonable person even questions that any governmental unit, from the national down to the local has inherent police power. A government would be powerless otherwise.

The Police Power of the Federal Government is co-extensive with its delegated powers. The Police Power of the several States is co-extensive with their reserved powers, minus those specific powers forbidden to them by the Constitution. The Police Power of Counties and Municipalities is such as is defined by their respective State Constitution and Laws.

And attempt to deny the presence of the Police Power is patently absurd. The very State could not exist without it.

1 Like

No, it isn’t.

There is nothing logical in your extremes.

Free exercise thereof

Peaceably assemble

1 Like

If its part of the religion it is.

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.