Home
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...providing-non-essential-church-services/
This is one of those places government is not allowed to go.Only the people can decide.
Sundance at The Last Refuge is the best journalist in the print media today. Daily reader here.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Urged to co-operate.
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!
That sounds correct that they legally cannot stop them from meeting, but they can forceably quarantine anyone who attends as a public health risk.
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".
He was "following orders" and "just doing my job".

This is why many people are distrustful of LEO.
If its governments decides to protect the people; why do we owe, and do business with communist china? Communists, regardless which communist country they are? Communists are our friends now?
The pastor of this mega-money church was telling his flock that they had "machines that kill the virus", so it was safe to come and pack the place. He should be arrested.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
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.

Seems pretty cut and dry. But then, it’s been hammered worse than the second.
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.
Originally Posted by jdm953
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.


We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
Quote
We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.




That explains why they want the guns
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.


We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

Because the founders knew the dangers of a Democracy.
Originally Posted by jdm953
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.



This is hardly "mob rule". It's elected executives, President and Governors, Promoting the General Welfare and protecting us as a whole from a grave threat in a TEMPORARY manner.

I personally hate government, but it has its role, and we're in a biological war.
Quote
protecting us



I thought all men were created equal?
Originally Posted by luv2safari
Originally Posted by jdm953
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.



This is hardly "mob rule". It's elected executives, President and Governors, Promoting the General Welfare and protecting us as a whole from a grave threat in a TEMPORARY manner.

I personally hate government, but it has its role, and we're in a biological war.

You just quoted why they want your guns.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.


Not even Scalia would join with you on your interpretation:

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...tion-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

n Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith.
Originally Posted by watch4bear
Quote
protecting us



I thought all men were created equal?

The purpose of "The Bill of Rights"is to protect us from us.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by luv2safari
Originally Posted by jdm953
We need to put things back into perspective.I have watched the meanings of things be changed for many years.Here are a couple things we have all heard "In a democracy 51% will enslave 49%".Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.Our Bill of Rights protects the lamb from democracy.It has gotten to where people pretend democracy is a good thing.It is not.It is mob rule.



This is hardly "mob rule". It's elected executives, President and Governors, Promoting the General Welfare and protecting us as a whole from a grave threat in a TEMPORARY manner.

I personally hate government, but it has its role, and we're in a biological war.

You just quoted why they want your guns.



Apples and oranges
Quote
The purpose of "The Bill of Rights"is to protect us from us.



Government by the people, of the people and for the people.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.


Not even Scalia would join with you on your interpretation:

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...tion-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

n Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith.

So our "Bill of Rights" means more to me than it did Scalia.
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.


Not even Scalia would join with you on your interpretation:

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...tion-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

n Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith.

So our "Bill of Rights" means more to me than it did Scalia.

I plan to sacrifice a few folks in line with my pagan religion.
I'll expect your support!
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.


Not even Scalia would join with you on your interpretation:

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...tion-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

n Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith.

So our "Bill of Rights" means more to me than it did Scalia.


Since the sheriff didn't outlaw the practicing of religion, nor freedom of speech, my guess is that you're protesting the arrest over the right to assemble?

But if you read a little closer, the amendment says "peaceably assemble". Kinda thinking that holding church services en mass, when a significant portion of those shedding the virus may not have symptoms, really isn't all that "peaceable". Not to society as a whole.

Pastor should have read up a bit more on that South Korean church of the Jesus that really boosted their coronavirus case and death toll. And just taken his services online. But you probably don't make as much money when running a church online...
Originally Posted by NH K9
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

How far are you willing to go.You ready to surrender to the all powerful,all controlling big brother who knows what is best for you."The Bill of Rights"is a list of things the government can not do.


Not even Scalia would join with you on your interpretation:

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...tion-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

n Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith.

So our "Bill of Rights" means more to me than it did Scalia.

I plan to sacrifice a few folks in line with my pagan religion.
I'll expect your support!


You've got mine!
Originally Posted by MadMooner
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.

Seems pretty cut and dry. But then, it’s been hammered worse than the second.

Well, just for the sake of argument, let's say a devil's advocate in the loosest sense..........


perhaps the Gooberment is not "prohibiting the free exercise" of a chosen religion, but instead prohibiting travel on the public roadways for non-essential reasons.



Perhaps if the attendees could prove that they levitated to their pews, there would be no issue?

Geno
Originally Posted by jdm953
This is one of those places government is not allowed to go.Only the people can decide.

Churches were closed by ordinance during the Spanish Flu.
Quote
Perhaps if the attendees could prove that they levitated to their pews, there would be no issue?




Like full semi auto?
And it was unconstitutional then, as well.

We are sailing into danger filled waters when the .gov thinks the Constitution can be suspended by governmental fiat.

This is a greater danger to the Republic than any virus or plague.



Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by jdm953
This is one of those places government is not allowed to go.Only the people can decide.

Churches were closed by ordinance during the Spanish Flu.
a_s,

there you go again, making sense and stuff.

better watch it , you might get a time out or something

Geno
Originally Posted by Valsdad
a_s,

there you go again, making sense and stuff.

better watch it , you might get a time out or something

Geno



Thanks Geno.

I'm sure I'll be called some kind of a pinko commie scum for thinking it's reasonable to just stay home for a few weeks so we can put the kebash on this thing and get our economy restarted on a sound footing.

It's not like I'm supporting the government drafting people and sending them over the top, or island hopping across the pacific. Just stay home for awhile until this passes, and that included packing the local megachurch. As previously mentioned, no god protected the Korean Christian spitters, COVID hit them really hard. Of course, someone will be along shortly to tell us that's only because there weren't "Real Christians". crazy

Dang, and here I thought you might be proposing the issuance of jackboots and black trenchcoats for the official Watchers of the Church Doors brigade.
You gotta be sensible, I'm all about freedom of religion and the Constitution. I will fight anybody that says I don't have a right to go to my church but not in a pandemic. This preacher was asking people to do something stupid. I've been around some preachers that are all about money. They would heard people into a building full of plague infected rats if they thought they could pass a plate and make a few thousand dollars. They arent about God they're about money. If a preacher wants to hold services during this pandemic he should do an out door service, while maintaining social distance and hygiene. A large football stadium comes to mind while maintaining 6 feet between people or families. If what was said is true and he told them he had machines that would destroy the virus he needs to be put away for good.

Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by MadMooner
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.

Seems pretty cut and dry. But then, it’s been hammered worse than the second.

Well, just for the sake of argument, let's say a devil's advocate in the loosest sense..........


perhaps the Gooberment is not "prohibiting the free exercise" of a chosen religion, but instead prohibiting travel on the public roadways for non-essential reasons.



Perhaps if the attendees could prove that they levitated to their pews, there would be no issue?

Geno


It’s not the religious implication that stands out to me, it’s the right to assemble.
The campfire proves you can't legislate against stupidity. If they lived on a compound and weren't going to infect others, who cares what they did to themselves. The problem is though they go right back into their communities and infect others. Everyone else has rights too, ya know. Almost every state in this country can link a huge amount of positive cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from church service. Nobody outlawed religion. That church had the means like almost every other church in this country to still have a service that it's members could partake in. Instead, they decided to purposefully flaunt the fact they were going to put others at risk just to have a service. Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.
Pretty much it. They should get in line to lick door knobs in NYC and see how that pans out. Lotsa tough guys.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by jdm953
This is one of those places government is not allowed to go.Only the people can decide.

Churches were closed by ordinance during the Spanish Flu.


Yes and it was Woodrow Wilson, also in charge during the Spanish Flu, that signed the Sedition Act into law. He was no friend of freedom and a hero to the modern day left.

Religion. In specific the religion taught and promoted by the Bible tells us that this life in temporal and that we should get our eyes off of this life and focus on eternity. Has anyone thought that this may have been on the pastor's mind when he had the church service? Lets set aside the health risk and focus on the Bible. It teaches that there is nothing more important than the soul of a human being. Jesus himself said that today is the day of salvation. So with that in mind the law was taking on a higher power than God himself. A true man of God does not take for granted that there may be another day for his people.

Another problem I see is that any time the government "thinks" we are in danger they will suspend our rights as they see fit. Whether that threat is real or not. Do you trust the government of our day enough to lay aside your freedom and hope they give it back when they say it's okay? Well if you do you might as well get all your guns ready to say goodbye too as well.
Originally Posted by Jim1611
Lets set aside the health risk and focus on the Bible.


Here's an excellent example of person's religious beliefs leading to sub-optimal decision making.

Please don't focus so much on your belief in the possibility of a next life that you cause the deaths of people in this life.
Originally Posted by 16bore
Pretty much it. They should get in line to lick door knobs in NYC and see how that pans out. Lotsa tough guys.

On the bright side of the epidemic, CNN's "Journalist/Reporter/TV Personality" Fredo Cuomo is reported to have contracted the Kung-Flu virus. Go give your brother a hug Fredo.
Originally Posted by Jim1611
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by jdm953
This is one of those places government is not allowed to go.Only the people can decide.

Churches were closed by ordinance during the Spanish Flu.


Yes and it was Woodrow Wilson, also in charge during the Spanish Flu, that signed the Sedition Act into law. He was no friend of freedom and a hero to the modern day left.

Religion. In specific the religion taught and promoted by the Bible tells us that this life in temporal and that we should get our eyes off of this life and focus on eternity. Has anyone thought that this may have been on the pastor's mind when he had the church service? Lets set aside the health risk and focus on the Bible. It teaches that there is nothing more important than the soul of a human being. Jesus himself said that today is the day of salvation. So with that in mind the law was taking on a higher power than God himself. A true man of God does not take for granted that there may be another day for his people.

Another problem I see is that any time the government "thinks" we are in danger they will suspend our rights as they see fit. Whether that threat is real or not. Do you trust the government of our day enough to lay aside your freedom and hope they give it back when they say it's okay? Well if you do you might as well get all your guns ready to say goodbye too as well.



Hmmmm, Focus on the Bible. Jesus cared deeply about individuals earthly life, not just their spiritual one. Why did he heal? He cared. Why did he cry for Lazarus? Because he cared. He felt our pain and cared. Jesus did not teach that human life was insignificant or inconsequential. Jesus would not have told his followers to go forth and infect the population with a deadly disease. At least not the one I've known.

Now lets get real. How many of you blowhards complaining of this were in a pew last Sunday? Do you walk the walk, or just talk the talk. Who here doing all the complaining was with your congregation in church on Sunday, March 22?

Jesus healed the sick, brought back people from the dead and died on the cross all for the glory of God and to help mankind see that He is the only way to heaven. Did he care for what happened in this life, yep. But he cares more about our soul than anything else.

Blowhards....why is it that you limit yourself so in your choice of adjectives. This one was not in church because we made the decision to not have our service. It was not from a threat from the government or that we were told to do so, we made that choice on our own.

It would be interesting to see just how many people from this church die or cause someone else to die or get sick because they were there together. We'll likely never know. What I do know is that Florida allowed all of the college people to take their spring break and didn't arrest a one of those people. Of course they were all being careful, staying away from each other and especially not touching one another.
So, a number of folks in his congregation get the virus--- They will all scream like hell for the Gov't to make them well.
They should have stayed the hell home!
We had a disaster simulation a few years ago for one of the buildings owned by the company I worked for. It was a million sq foot office building in Plano. Usually the scenario on these types of sims is a natural disaster of some sort. All the high ranking heads of the different business groups in the building get together with the business continuity, security, safety, and facilities managers and game out how they’d handle the scenario. This time instead of a tornado, the scenario was a truck carrying chlorine gas crashing on the tollway and causing the air outside the building to be poisonous.

We’d secured the building, cut off all outside ventilation, and sealed the doors. We had established contact with the authorities, used the call center to contact everybody’s families, and were waiting for the all clear from whoever the government had monitoring the air quality. At one point, somebody asked what security would do if someone panicked and insisted on leaving the building. My boss thought that would be a good question for me to answer for some reason so I did. I told them we would not allow anyone to leave under any circumstances until it was deemed safe to do so. I got the “what about their rights” speech and had to tell her that if I had to, I would physically stop them from opening the door and forcibly restrain them. One person’s right to go whenever and wherever they wanted didn’t equal me or anybody else having to get a lungful of chlorine gas period. I told her it was like a triage and that we would do the most good for the most people even if I had to clobber somebody and cuff them to a pipe in the stairwell. I don’t see much difference with the preacher in question here.
Jdm953: It seems to me the Sheriff is trying to protect the people of his county and asking/directing/demanding that people not "congregate" (like in churches!) for the next 14 to 30 days is NOT being "against the constitution"!
Case in point the church choir that refused to halt practices for "the time being' and many of the choir-ites became ill and some died and the corona virus was then spread in countless directions!
Now IF the Sheriff had tried to "ban" or permanently impede attendance at a church then THAT indeed would be "against the constitution"!
But he was trying to institute a temporary "policy" that would save lives and not harm a religion in any way shape or form.
Me doth thinkst thou is an alarmist!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne can't pass the plate if'n he ain't got peeples in the sanctuary.
Jdm953: It was just announced on FOX news that a Florida Sheriff just arrested a "church pastor for no-compliance!
Seems that this "situation" will be adjudicated in court post hence.
I assume the sheriff and pastor FOX referred to are the same you are questioning about?
Remember now we are a nation of laws and if a "man" defies or breaks a lawful "law/order" he is susceptible to arrest/conviction!
Is that NOT correct?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
P.S.: I am not as cynical as the CampFirer who contacted me off line just now claiming the various pastors around the country are more interested in "gathering money" than the safety of their congregations and the public - could be - I don't know.
So, for the good of the public, it is acceptable for the government to institute “temporary policy” that curtails Constitutionally recognized rights by threat of criminal prosecution?

I’m not sure I can agree with that. Not pertaining to the Second or the First.

Those church folks certainly open themselves to civil liability, and if they purposefully expose others outside the group, perhaps criminal as well. I just can’t agree with liberty being preemptively stripped.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
It does require some degree of sense, though. Yes, they have the right to meet but it's up to them to use sense in doing it. Viruses don't respect the law. The police don't have the right to stop them, though. That's up to the individuals.
Originally Posted by MadMooner
it is acceptable for the government to institute “temporary policy” that curtails Constitutionally recognized rights by threat of criminal prosecution?


Yes
No difference banning kids partying on the beach during spring break and banning gatherings at churches during the pandemic.This is as dumb as the anti -vaxers
nobody has a right to somehow potentially expose society at large to a deadly disease. now, you may scrutinize those who make such decisions, but this one isn't even a close call
From The Federalist

Dem Gov's Back off gun bans

But note that a county sheriff in North Carolina still wants to hang on to his crown...................

MM
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by jdm953
Originally Posted by TBREW401
The Sheriff is not against the Constitution--- he is against breaking the law!

He should have arrested the whole congregation!

NAZI How the hell can he violate the "Bill of Rights".


The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
It does require some degree of sense, though. Yes, they have the right to meet but it's up to them to use sense in doing it. Viruses don't respect the law. The police don't have the right to stop them, though. That's up to the individuals.


Actually, they do.

The law was not "respecting the establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise there of", it was about stopping a pandemic.

Your religious rights do not include the right to kill me and my family by child sacrifice or spreading a deadly virus.
Originally Posted by ribka
No difference banning kids partying on the beach during spring break and banning gatherings at churches during the pandemic.This is as dumb as the anti -vaxers


A better comparison would be recognizing the right of an individual to choose whether or not to vaccinate or mandating by law/forced vaccines.

I see your point, but public beaches vs private property.

Outside fubarski, not sure anyone doesn’t recognize the need to socially distance themselves and their families. Just not convinced the gov should be allowed infringe upon a persons rights.
The cops aren’t really protecting citizens from criminals as much as they’re protecting criminals from the citizens. What happens if a preacher holds his services in spite of what he’s been told and as a result, a virus hot spot occurs like with that choir practice, and then as a result, your wife catches it and dies? If that happened to certain folks, that preacher would be wishing they’d have arrested him. When someone obviously puts other people at risk, either the cops show up and deal with it within the law or it gets dealt with some other way.
Or large concerts, parties on private property vs church gatherings.

I was just talking to my Mom who grew up with measles, small pox and of course polio. She said they were scared to death of contracting polio. It was a miricle when Saulk came up with a vaccine she said and people were very grateful . Now we're seeing an upsurge in diseases we wiped out decades ago due to the anti vaccine crowd and of course uncontrolled illegal immigration from third world countries.

Still not a fan of organized religion

Originally Posted by MadMooner
Originally Posted by ribka
No difference banning kids partying on the beach during spring break and banning gatherings at churches during the pandemic.This is as dumb as the anti -vaxers


A better comparison would be recognizing the right of an individual to choose whether or not to vaccinate or mandating by law/forced vaccines.

I see your point, but public beaches vs private property.

Outside fubarski, not sure anyone doesn’t recognize the need to socially distance themselves and their families. Just not convinced the gov should be allowed infringe upon a persons rights.

Originally Posted by ribka
Or large concerts, parties on private property vs church gatherings.

I was just talking to my Mom who grew up with measles, small pox and of course polio. She said they were scared to death of contracting polio. It was a miricle when Saulk came up with a vaccine she said and people were very grateful . Now we're seeing an upsurge in diseases we wiped out decades ago due to the anti vaccine crowd and of course uncontrolled illegal immigration from third world countries.




I asked my almost 90 year old mother whom I would describe as bible-thumping Oklahoma-born hyper-pentacostal about how the pastors should be treated and she said "hang 'em."
smart lady!!!


Originally Posted by utah708
Originally Posted by ribka
Or large concerts, parties on private property vs church gatherings.

I was just talking to my Mom who grew up with measles, small pox and of course polio. She said they were scared to death of contracting polio. It was a miricle when Saulk came up with a vaccine she said and people were very grateful . Now we're seeing an upsurge in diseases we wiped out decades ago due to the anti vaccine crowd and of course uncontrolled illegal immigration from third world countries.




I asked my almost 90 year old mother whom I would describe as bible-thumping Oklahoma-born hyper-pentacostal about how the pastors should be treated and she said "hang 'em."
Those boneheads packing that church have no common [bleep]' sense or any sense of self preservation. I'll bet if you told them there was a AIDS patient in there they would be gone like a fart in a hurricane. Ass whole outght to be locked up.
Someone passed this along through Facebook. Guess that preacher doesn't do FB.
Isaiah 26:20

20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,

and shut your doors behind you;

hide yourselves for a little while

until the fury has passed by.
© 24hourcampfire