View Poll Results: Who should re-open first, churches or AA meetings?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Places of worship

    1 33.33%
  • AA meetings

    2 66.67%
  • No opinion

    0 0%
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 142

Thread: (Lighter thread): Who should re-open first, churches or AA meetings?

  1. #71
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    61,927
    Amen (Given)
    13432
    Amen (Received)
    28174
    Quote Originally Posted by DivineOb View Post
    FWIW, the Wikipedia article on the free exercise clause indicates that the "compelling interest" threshold has been relaxed in recent decades.


    The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the Free Exercise Clause in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. In 2017, the Court applied this doctrine in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that there must be a compelling state interest for express discrimination based on religious status in government funding schemes.

    Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the general applicability of the "compelling interest" standard present prior to Employment Division v. Smith. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down as exceeding Congress's powers those provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment. Thus, state and local government actions that are facially neutral toward religion are judged by the Employment Division v. Smith standard rather than RFRA. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.


    I don't know enough on this subject to really discuss much further. To me it seems like the lockdown restrictions could easily pass the "compelling interest" threshold in any case.
    Well, we'll find out soon, because arrests have been made and trials will be had. And many states have enacted Religious Liberty Restoration Statutes.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  2. #72
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    59,256
    Amen (Given)
    1218
    Amen (Received)
    21607
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Right there in the first amendment, Jim -- "of prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- no exceptions there at all.



    I think what you are missing is the fact that the things I mentioned are engaged in commerce, which most certainly can be taxed, limited, regulated... The free exercise of religion is not the same as commerce, which can be regulated.
    Nobody could get him to understand this during discussions concerning the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case and I doubt that will change now.

    Your arguing with a wall.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  3. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  4. #73
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,166
    Amen (Given)
    2134
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Nobody could get him to understand this during discussions concerning the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case and I doubt that will change now.

    Your arguing with a wall.
    So long as the churches are not targeted gentlemen, so long as the ban does not apply to churches alone, and it is a temporary ban in the interests of public safety, in other words so long as the law is neutral, it is perfectly legal to ban church services. I don't have the time or patience to actually find the case law for you, but if you are actually interested i'm sure you can fact check for yourselves.

    Here is a friendly conservative site to enlighten you, Mr. Wall. The ACLJ headed by the Presidents own council no less, Jay Sekulow.

    aclj.org/religious-liberty/can-the-government-close-churches-in-response-to-an-epidemic
    Last edited by JimL; 05-23-2020 at 01:27 AM.

  5. #74
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,315
    Amen (Given)
    116
    Amen (Received)
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Nobody could get him to understand this during discussions concerning the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case and I doubt that will change now.

    Your arguing with a wall.
    Rogue,

    If you're talking about the case I'm thinking of I happen to agree with the Supreme Court in that case. Sheesh.

  6. #75
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    61,927
    Amen (Given)
    13432
    Amen (Received)
    28174
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So long as the churches are not targeted gentlemen, so long as the ban does not apply to churches alone, and it is a temporary ban in the interests of public safety, in other words so long as the law is neutral, it is perfectly legal to ban church services.
    Woah, it's been a while since the manure spreader malfunctioned and threw the whole load all at once!

    I don't have the time or patience to actually find the case law for you,
    Good, cause it ain't there!

    but if you are actually interested i'm sure you can fact check for yourselves.
    A tacit admission if ever there was one.

    Here is a friendly conservative site to enlighten you, Mr. Wall. The ACLJ headed by the Presidents own council no less, Jay Sekulow.

    aclj.org/religious-liberty/can-the-government-close-churches-in-response-to-an-epidemic
    NOWHERE in that article does brother Jay support your goofy notion that "it is perfectly legal to ban church services". You might wanna take off your anti-Christian Bias glasses and read it again.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  7. #76
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    61,927
    Amen (Given)
    13432
    Amen (Received)
    28174
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    ...The ACLJ headed by the Presidents own council no less, Jay Sekulow.

    aclj.org/religious-liberty/can-the-government-close-churches-in-response-to-an-epidemic
    Here is part of that article which supports EXACTLY what I have been saying...

    Also, different – and stricter – rules apply to the federal government on this score. While state and local governments can neutrally apply safety measures to churches, the federal government must meet a higher standard under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). If the federal action imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise – and closing churches certainly would do so – then the federal government must prove that it acts to further a compelling interest and is taking the least restrictive means to further that interest. (Some states also provide similar extra protection for religion under their own constitutions and statutes.)


    Brother Jay is pretty much where I get my info, because he is our Church's lawyer.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  8. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  9. #77
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    61,927
    Amen (Given)
    13432
    Amen (Received)
    28174
    AND..... (I'm on a roll and about to go out and do some mowing).... while we're on this topic....

    I want to make it clear that our Church, in particular, and most others in general, sought out the advice of our local government, and we were FAR MORE concerned about protecting the health and well being of our elderly congregants, and had ZERO desire to "battle the courts".

    Now, had they actually tried to BAN Church, as JimL was referencing, THAT would have been a war, and our County Judge knew that full well.


    It's like when we were getting ready to build a drive-through for our fellowship hall, and a dude from county government stopped by and advised that we needed a wheelchair ramp where our proposed "stairs" were gonna be --- one of our deacons got really mad and was ready to fight, because "Government doesn't need to be telling Churches what to do!". I calmed him down, and said, "look, we're not doing this 'to comply with government bullying' - we're gonna do this because we love people who are mobility challenged and want to make ingress and egress easier for them". He calmed down and said, "OH... um.... OK then!"
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  10. Amen KingsGambit, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  11. #78
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    59,256
    Amen (Given)
    1218
    Amen (Received)
    21607
    Quote Originally Posted by DivineOb View Post
    Rogue,

    If you're talking about the case I'm thinking of I happen to agree with the Supreme Court in that case. Sheesh.
    Who cares?

    I wasn't talking to you or about you. Sheesh.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  12. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  13. #79
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,166
    Amen (Given)
    2134
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Woah, it's been a while since the manure spreader malfunctioned and threw the whole load all at once!



    Good, cause it ain't there!



    A tacit admission if ever there was one.


    NOWHERE in that article does brother Jay support your goofy notion that "it is perfectly legal to ban church services". You might wanna take off your anti-Christian Bias glasses and read it again.
    Jay Sekulow: "Likewise, if a disease epidemic requires imposition of a curfew or quarantine, or prohibition of large gatherings, this (the banning of in church services) can be legitimate, so long as there is no unfairness in the governments treatment of religious intitutions and persons. The watchword is neutrality"

    In other words, so long as churches aren't singled out unfairly. How could you have read that and conclude that nowhere in the article does it say that?

  14. #80
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,475
    Amen (Given)
    1736
    Amen (Received)
    1035
    Churches are a primary vector for spreading the infection by COVID 19. AA meetings can be small and easily held in consideration of social distanceing.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •