If the pastors lose on May 29, it will be interesting to

Hall of Famer [24476]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 13968

Joined: 7/3/01

I think it is deeper than that.

May 18, 2020, 2:40 PM

There is no principle, imo, that empowers our government to decide which otherwise legal activities they will allow and which not. I understand why some people say, "Its for the common good." Except it does not accomplish a common good, and the Framers knew it.

Lets assume for a moment that there is a hypothetical scenario which would be so overwhelming for the common good that our government could impose a temporary "can't leave your house order", suspending the First Amendment right of assembly. Who decides what rises to that level? Someone has to decide. The way we have done it, any governor - heck, any mayor - has that authority. If they can say a virus is "common good" enough to suspend the First Amendment, there is hardly any limit on what an individual gov or mayor will use to exercise autocratic authority.

We can argue whether a virus no more deadly than corona rises to that level. I am 110% no. You might be yes. But no one other than individual autocrats are deciding. So, yes, this needs to be challenged, and challenged with the best lawyers and money available, at every level and instance. The last civilian line of defense we have is the courts, and we should use them in this case, imo, much more than we have.

Classic liberals - not as currently politically defined - should be thanking Christians for doing this. But they don't. That tells you something right there.

Message was edited by: CUintulsa®

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

In your example, freedom of assembly...that right is infringed in lots of ways already. For example, lots of times you need a permit to assemble the way you want to. This is in the interest of public safety. And yes, local officials have latitude to decide, unless it is challenged.

The practice of child sacrifice would be an example of a religious exercise that we don't have the freedom to practice. And I doubt anyone disagrees with it.

So, I don't buy that any limits whatsoever are unconstitutional. That's obviously not true. There's a line; it's not black and white. The place on that line where it's "too much" is pretty much the function of the court system. So the challenging is good...we completely agree there. That's how you prevent the autocratic stuff.

A group of pastors and religious leaders

Sorry, meant to post a news link.

When you say “for the record” before stating your

The latter.

Darn....92% of the time you’re a pretty sensible guy...

Also, for the record (sorry Obed)

The Pope had less than 10 for Easter mass.***

We had less than 10 in every service since March

"God-ordained government authority"

That may be the "spirit of America"

Does that pertain to, say, the Assad regime in Syria?***

Yes.***

I will not argue the point but I want to point out that...

I hope not. But I also think

Agreed. I would think it would be close to whatever the

Which is what we did for the first time in 2 months

Christians enjoy a level of "freedom" in this country that

I think the crux of their argument is that they felt

Hey! You 12 people in church there!!

I understand the principle...

I think it is deeper than that.

But none of the First Amendment rights are absolute.

TigerBoard POTD