Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!

[JaCrispy]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html
 

I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people!

[Tiberius]

Just now, JaCrispy said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html
 

I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people!

This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying 

[JaCrispy]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying 

The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did...

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

 

It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”.

 

The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. And people can choose whether they want to attend or not...

Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did...

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

 

It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”.

 

The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. 👍

Some? They are all deeply religious! Religion by its nature is anti-science, of course they people are going to ignore science to push for the unhealthy religious gatherings 

[JaCrispy]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Some? They are all deeply religious! Religion by its nature is anti-science, of course they people are going to ignore science to push for the unhealthy religious gatherings 

First off, let’s just be honest with each other, and not try to pretend like we know how religious each member of the Supreme Court is...

 

Second, I disagree with your notion that religion, itself, has to be anti science...Can some religious people be anti science? Sure...But there are also people, like myself, who believe in both...

 

Third, if you read the quote from the constitution I previously posted, it clearly states, without ambiguity, what the law is- and a majority of the justices have correctly interpreted it, imo...

 

Now, you may not agree with what the constitution clearly states...you might want the State to have ultimate power and control over those decisions...that is your right to have that opinion...but our country was not set up that way...And it has nothing to do with what the justices think about science or the virus, imo, and everything to do with what they think about the constitution and our God given human rights...👍

Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy

[DrDawkinstein]

But what about the very first part of the sentence?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

Remember, the Freedom of Religion is also the Freedom FROM Religion. The good of the country supersedes the want of any single religion.

[JaCrispy]

9 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

But what about the very first part of the sentence?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

Remember, the Freedom of Religion is also the Freedom FROM Religion. The good of the country supersedes the want of any single religion.

Great question...That portion of the quote is to protect against the government promoting or advocating for a particular religion...

 

However, no single religion is being protected or advanced...the freedom to exercise religion pertains to ALL faiths...

Edited December 4, 2020 by JaCrispy

[oldmanfan]

First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  I am a scientist and also a man of faith.  I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church.  I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease.  Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. 

 

As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place.  However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services.  My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home.  So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great.  But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community.

 

I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends.  For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se.  And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs.  That's crap.   A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices:  fill it or quit being a pharmacist.  You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized.  A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple.  Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion.  

[DrDawkinstein]

19 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Great question...That portion of the quote is to protect against the government promoting or advocating for a particular religion...

 

However, no single religion is being protected or advanced...the freedom to exercise religion pertains to ALL faiths...

 

Maybe, that's open to some interpretation. But even so, the second part has also been ruled on previously.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.

 

The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

 

Unfortunately, this latest ruling goes against precedent. Something that isnt surprising for this now-packed Supreme Court. The Separation of Church and State is crumbling.

[JaCrispy]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  I am a scientist and also a man of faith.  I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church.  I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease.  Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. 

 

As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place.  However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services.  My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home.  So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great.  But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community.

 

I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends.  For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se.  And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs.  That's crap.   A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices:  fill it or quit being a pharmacist.  You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized.  A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple.  Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion.  

Nice post...much of what you say is kind of where I’m coming from...and your concerns are certainly legitimate imo...

6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Maybe, that's open to some interpretation. But even so, the second part has also been ruled on previously.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice.

 

The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

 

Unfortunately, this latest ruling goes against precedent. Something that isnt surprising for this now-packed Supreme Court. The Separation of Church and State is crumbling.

Good stuff...informative 👍

[WideNine]

22 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive.  I am a scientist and also a man of faith.  I've been doing clinical work and research for over 40 years, and faithfully attend church and have served as council president, evangelism deacon, and other roles at my church.  I believe God gives us all spiritual gifts He expects us to use to advance His kingdom, and for scientists it is using our brains and talents to discover new things and help alleviate disease.  Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is both a devout Christian and brilliant scientist and I would refer anyone with an interest in this subject to read some of his writings on the subject. 

 

As to this Supreme Court ruling, as far as it comes to the Covid thing I am in agreement. Churches should not have different rules as far as restriction of numbers of people per amount of space and such as any other place.  However, I would also agree with churches using their heads as far as their services.  My church now limits the number who can attend to a level where we can perform appropriate distancing, we require masks, the choirs are not present because that increases spread, and our services are streamed live for members and others who feel safer worshipping from home.  So long as the churches in NYS and Cali do the same, great.  But if they choose to worship in a way that violates the state health code (no masks, no social distancing, etc.) in violation of guidelines for other public areas, then they should be closed down because at that point they threaten the health and well being of the entire community.

 

I am concerned that this Court will take the phrase "religious freedom" to ridiculous ends.  For example, we prescribe birth control pills for women to treat different reproductive disorders, not necessarily for birth control per se.  And at least one or two patients have told us they've a had a pharmacist say he won't fill it because he rejects birth control based on his religious beliefs.  That's crap.   A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legal prescription written by a licensed physician has two choices:  fill it or quit being a pharmacist.  You religious beliefs don't mean my health is jeopardized.  A similar thought with the bakers and baking cakes for a gay couple.  Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion in my opinion.  

 

Excellent post.

 

I would add too that several cities impose health restrictions that curb individual liberties for the good of their fellow citizens.

 

I do not see much fundamental difference from mask-wearing and distancing mandates to the existing city, county, or state-wide indoor smoking bans because of the health risk of 2nd hand smoke which takes a more round about means and years to manifest health risks.

 

I would argue that if those folks want to exercise the freedom to create super spreader events their religious leaders should do the responsible thing and log attendance with local contact tracers in advance.

 

The really responsible and caring thing to do for your "flock" would be to limit gatherings in person use remote video tech and encourage their safety and others around them.

 

It does beg the question of where does the state of emergency powers extend for a jurisdiction?

 

Perhaps not to prevent religious gatherings, but to enforce quarantines of those not following pandemic response guidance...

 

 

[shoshin]

I have not read the case but from that CNN article, this was interesting. 

 

A lawyer for the church said that while religious worship is at times "severely restricted," grocery stores, big box retails stores, laundromats and warehouses do not have similar restrictions."The disparate treatment of religious as compared to similar nonreligious congregate gatherings unquestionably and substantially burden the Churches' exercise of religion and violates the First Amendment," the lawyer said.

 

It sounds like CA grouped certain businesses into essential vs non-essential, putting churches in the later category. I can see the difference between Wegmans and St. Mary's but I'm not losing sleep over this decision. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

The Court May have some religious people on it, but I don’t think you have to be religious to come to the conclusion that the court did...

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

 

It doesn’t say “unless there is a public health crisis” or “unless we are at war”.

 

The rights in the constitution are considered God given human rights that no government can, simply, put a pause on whenever they feel like it...that’s the beauty of it. And people can choose whether they want to attend or not...

 

"Establishment of religion" does NOT refer to a building or other meeting place.   It specifically  prohibits the government from favoring a particular religion over other religions.   That was the original intent because the British forced the Anglican Church on the colonies -- including supporting it with compulsory tithes -- and some colonies, like Massachusetts Bay, had persecuted non-Puritans.   Two centuries of court decisions have led to the "establishment of religion" clause to mean that the government should be neutral toward religon in general, not giving religious groups/organizations advantages or disadvantages.   The majority's argument in this case was that houses of worship were treated differently from businesses and other venues where people assembled.

[DrDawkinstein]

14 minutes ago, shoshin said:

It sounds like CA grouped certain businesses into essential vs non-essential, putting churches in the later category. I can see the difference between Wegmans and St. Mary's but I'm not losing sleep over this decision. 

 

I'm losing a little sleep. Between this and the NY decision, they have set the precedent that there will be no way of stopping the pandemic other than a vaccine. Even with the change of leadership. The US will refuse to enact the common sense mandates that have helped other countries curtail and control the spread of the virus.

 

The US reported more deaths yesterday than what occurred on 9/11. We are now going to be hit with a 9/11 every day until we can get a vaccine and get it distributed to everyone in the country. It is truly a pathetic look for the US for everyone watching from the outside. We look dumb and selfish.

 

It is going to be a long 6-8 months.

[SoTier]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I'm losing a little sleep. Between this and the  NY decision, they have set the precedent that there will be no way of stopping the pandemic other than a vaccine. Even with the change of leadership. The US will refuse to enact the common sense mandates that have helped other countries curtail and control the spread of the virus.

 

The US reported more deaths yesterday than what occurred on 9/11. We are now going to be hit with a 9/11 every day until we can get a vaccine and get it distributed to everyone in the country. It is truly a pathetic look for the US for everyone watching from the outside. We look dumb and selfish.

 

It is going to be a long 6-8 months.

 

Sad but true.

[Tiberius]

https://news.yahoo.com/pastor-dies-covid-19-weeks-175638135.html  
 

Pastor of mega church dies 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

This court is full of religious people. We should have non-believers on the court, too. Just saying 

 

What Supreme Court decision forces the non-religious to do anything?

In this decision, they're limiting the government from preventing people from practicing their religion as they see fit.  The Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to limit the government, not empower it. This decision is consistent with limiting the government.

 

You're "just saying", but you're inventing an issue that doesn't exist.

 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

What Supreme Court decision forces the non-religious to do anything?

In this decision, they're limiting the government from preventing people from practicing their religion as they see fit.  The Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to limit the government, not empower it. This decision is consistent with limiting the government.

 

You're "just saying", but you're inventing an issue that doesn't exist.

 

“Protect the general welfare” 
 

Knowing and believing modern science helps with that. Religion is in many instances against science. Just saying 

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

“Protect the general welfare” 
 

Knowing and believing modern science helps with that. Religion is in many instances against science. Just saying 

 

You want to move the goalposts to "religion = no science"?  There are no religious scientists, no religious doctors? Your position is not consistent with the real world.

 

As for the general welfare, laws that abridge constitutionally protected freedoms must be limited, not broad-brushed.  You may have a distaste for religion and religious people, but they have constitutionally protected rights.  Do you have any proof that churchgoers are violating social distancing guidelines?  Do you think they get together for big non-masked group hugs and then go out to the community to spread their Covid disease they don't believer in science?

 

 

[oldmanfan]

36 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

You want to move the goalposts to "religion = no science"?  There are no religious scientists, no religious doctors? Your position is not consistent with the real world.

 

As for the general welfare, laws that abridge constitutionally protected freedoms must be limited, not broad-brushed.  You may have a distaste for religion and religious people, but they have constitutionally protected rights.  Do you have any proof that churchgoers are violating social distancing guidelines?  Do you think they get together for big non-masked group hugs and then go out to the community to spread their Covid disease they don't believer in science?

 

 

As both a scientist and a Christian, I must tell you that, sadly, there are many that fit your last sentence.  I am not a big social media guy but I have been on Facebook to defend science since the pandemic started.  And it is frightening how many invoke God to deny science.  I can’t count how many people refuse to wear masks as the most glaring example because they refuse to accept actual data and fact, and then hide behind religion as a rationale for it, saying that they follow God and not science.  It’s sickening.

 

As bad as the deaths and morbidity and economic impact are of the pandemic, what may be the worst consequence is we have so many people who simply, stubbornly refuse to accept facts.  God help our society.