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

[DivineOb]

So why bold the part you want, and ignore the part I want? Let's try my version....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Everybody likes to throw "the establishment clause" around, but ignore the "prohibition clause".

I am not a Constitutional Scholar. My understanding is that the restriction is against singling our particular belief (or nonbelief) for special treatment / punishment. It isn't to say that the right to practice one's religion trumps all other considerations at all times and places.

Is that your understanding?

[Cow Poke]

I am not a Constitutional Scholar. My understanding is that the restriction is against singling our particular belief (or nonbelief) for special treatment / punishment.

Is that your understanding?

Not at all - "religious liberty" is religious liberty - period. And, again, the other examples I have involved commerce, not just "free speech" as in "the right to assemble peaceably".

It isn't to say that the right to practice one's religion trumps all other considerations at all times and places.

sorry for pulling that one out of order, but wanted to address it separately. Religion does not trump all other considerations at all times and places. There simply has to be an awfully compelling reason to violate the "separation" principle.

[JimL]

The Navaho reservation has the highest covid outbreak in the country. It was traced back to a religeous ceremony, aka church.

[Cow Poke]

The Navaho reservation has the highest covid outbreak in the country. It was traced back to a religeous ceremony, aka church.

No, it wasn't church. It was a combination of other health risks, lack of running water, cultural difficulties, comorbidities, or pre-existing conditions. They are incredible susceptible to such pandemics.

[Cow Poke]

The Navaho reservation has the highest covid outbreak in the country. It was traced back to a religeous ceremony, aka church.

You're so full of crap on this one, Jim - this is a cheap shot even for you. Besides reasons I've already listed, they're simply not complying with instructions...

'I'm pretty frustrated': Navajo Nation president plans 6th weekend curfew amid case spike

While discussing on Thursday plans to enact a sixth 57-hour curfew for the Navajo Nation this weekend, President Jonathan Nez expressed frustration about people not abiding by the order.

"I'm pretty frustrated guys, as your president, I'm being honest with you," Nez said during an online town hall streamed from a food distribution site in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona. "Let's work together, how hard is that? How hard is it to work together and just staying home for 57 hours?"

Specific details about the curfew have not yet been provided by the tribe's officials, but the previous curfews each began at 8 p.m. Fridays and ended at 5 a.m. Mondays. Aside from essential employees and people traveling for emergencies, Navajo Nation residents are required to stay home during the curfews, officials previously announced.

"We love you, that's why we're saying this; we want you to live a long life, everyone, that's why we're doing this, that's why we have some tough love messages," he continued.

Nez's comments followed what he referred to as "a big spike" in positive COVID-19 cases and deaths. Late Wednesday, the Navajo Nation reported 147 new identified cases and 16 additional deaths, bringing the tribe's total to 3,392 known cases and 119 confirmed deaths, according to a press release.

Nez noted during the town hall that the tribe was aggressively testing, with about 8%— or 20,928 people — of its population having been tested, he said. He added that the tribe's total number of known COVID-19 cases included people who might have recovered; however, he did not indicate how many were deemed recovered but said officials were working to compile that data.

According to Nez, most of the Navajo Nation's new positive cases reported on Wednesday were in the tribe's Shiprock Service area, which includes some remote communities in Arizona and Utah, as well as most of San Juan County in New Mexico, just north of Gallup, New Mexico.

"Of course we'll find out later but the assumption is, the reason for the increase in those numbers is, the shutdown in Gallup, New Mexico," Nez said about the border city's lockdown between May 1 and May 10. "Because of that, people shifted into these other areas and we're supposed to be staying home, ladies and gentlemen, during curfew, not packing your bags on a Friday to get out of the curfew. Stay home, that's the bottom line."

Several people commenting on Nez's and Navajo Nation Vice President Myron Lizer's Facebook posts said they believed the weekend curfews were not enough, suggesting a full lockdown. Others said they believed the curfews weren't working at all.

"A lot of these people that are complaining saying 'stay home, stay home, stay home,' they don't realize the other aspect of it that home is not adequate to most families...so in a lot of places you have to travel 40 or 50 miles just to get what you need," said Daniel Lincoln, a resident of St. Michaels, Arizona.

This is why your credibility is in the sewer, Jim -- you just make crap up, which is why you almost never cite sources.

[JimL]

No, it wasn't church. It was a combination of other health risks, lack of running water, cultural difficulties, comorbidities, or pre-existing conditions. They are incredible susceptible to such pandemics.

What I said CP, was that the first case was traced back to the church. I didn't mention the bad conditions that could contribute to the fast spread of the virus. You're in such a hurry to prove me wrong that you're not actually reading what i actually said.

http://durangoherald.com/articles/324625

[Cow Poke]

What I said CP, was that the first case was traced back to the church. I didn't mention the bad conditions that could contribute to the fast spread of the virus. You're in such a hurry to prove me wrong that you're not actually reading what i actually said.

http://durangoherald.com/articles/324625

That particular instance --- perhaps you're unaware how vast the Navajo Nation is. You're such an anti-Christian bigot you'll do anything to blame this on religion

But I DID force you to provide a cite!!! That's rare.

[JimL]

That particular instance --- perhaps you're unaware how vast the Navajo Nation is. You're such an anti-Christian bigot you'll do anything to blame this on religion

But I DID force you to provide a cite!!! That's rare.

I know, I knew what you were up to, you made me do it. And I wasn't happy about it either.

[Cow Poke]

I know, I knew what you were up to, you made me do it. And I wasn't happy about it either.

OK, so now I feel bad.

[DivineOb]

Not at all - "religious liberty" is religious liberty - period. And, again, the other examples I have involved commerce, not just "free speech" as in "the right to assemble peaceably".



sorry for pulling that one out of order, but wanted to address it separately. Religion does not trump all other considerations at all times and places. There simply has to be an awfully compelling reason to violate the "separation" principle.

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[rogue06]

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.

[JimL]

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

[DivineOb]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.