America's Top Court Strikes Down Covid-19 Restriction On Religious Groups (cnn.com) 465
DevNull127 writes: Earlier this year the governor's order had "restricted the size of religious gatherings in certain areas of New York where infection rates were climbing," reports the New York Times. But Wednesday night (in a close 5 to 4 decision) America's highest court ruled against the governor — and in favor of two religious organizations challenging him.
"[T]hey tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak," the ruling points out.
CNN notes that the court's majority believed that the governor's enjoined regulations were "'far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus' at the religious services in question."
The Times concludes that "If unconstrained religious observance and public safety were sometimes at odds, as the governor and other public officials maintained, the court ruled that religious freedom should win out." Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, argues the court's ruling "proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence."
"[T]hey tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak," the ruling points out.
CNN notes that the court's majority believed that the governor's enjoined regulations were "'far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus' at the religious services in question."
The Times concludes that "If unconstrained religious observance and public safety were sometimes at odds, as the governor and other public officials maintained, the court ruled that religious freedom should win out." Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, argues the court's ruling "proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence."
Aah natural selection... (Score:3)
Welcome back my beautiful old friend!
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no. This simply accelerates the spread of the virus through the population endangering everyone, and forcing the entire population not wishing to suffer the effects of the virus in themselves to lock themselves down.
It is not like only the people going to the churches risk illness and death.
Re:Aah natural selection... (Score:4, Informative)
It is not like only the people going to the churches risk illness and death.
True!
Shoppers...
Protesters...
Rioters...
Perhaps the churchgoers just want to be on a level playing field. Being told they cannot meet while neighboring groups are specifically allowed seems a tad unfair. The SCOTUS seems to agree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of those other groups are packing themselves tightly into indoor environments and singing? The nature of these worship activities makes them objectively more dangerous, and the restrictions in response were reasonable and evidence-based.
When I first heard of religious groups pushing back against these restrictions on worship activities, I thought that if the government actually wanted to genocide them, all they'd need to do is give them exactly what they want. And now a conservative supreme court h
Re:Aah natural selection... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that churches were shut down while the spike in cases occurred, I have to conclude that it's not the fault of churches for the spike.
So because churches haven't caused a spike in cases yet means that they won't when restrictions on them are lifted? This is an interesting strawman hybrid fallacy you've constructed here.
Can you please help me understand the difference between "singing during church" and "yelling during a protest" and how the evidence shows that one is more risky than the other? It's a serious question.
The indoor vs. outdoor difference would be the first major differentiator.
Re:Aah natural selection... (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps I'd prefer to see the rules applied evenly and fairly across the board? Perhaps I don't think we should pick on churches (or synagogues or mosques) without also picking on the groups that are *actually* causing the spike?
Agreed, but nobody's "picking on" places of worship because they're places of worship, they're getting singled out due to the nature of the activity there - being indoors, singing, with some incentives to breach social distancing (interacting with others being a major aspect of services).
So, if I'm outdoors but shoulder to shoulder and chanting alongside many others, that's okay... But socially distanced inside of a building (any building!) and signing, it is not okay?
We're getting into a lot of hypothetical details here, but being in a building (any building!) is indeed significantly more risky. Outdoor worship services would be much safer, I'm surprised religious organizations haven't explored this route more instead of digging their heels in and getting an inflamed persecution complex.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were just natural selection it would be okay. But at this point it is someone putting their imaginary friend before the health of others. If the virus killed instantly and didn't spread I'd even suggest they go back to all drinking communally from the same cup and having the same person touch everyone's face in the crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh I read TFS. I haven't had any outbreak in my house either. So everyone in the country should come over and we'll hug it out, sing and dance here and all be merry. Virus solved.
Seriously your leap of logic is astounding.
These people and their imaginary friend were doing more than the government required to mitigate the spread of COVID.
By suing the government who requested them to do something...
?? I don't think a pathogen that doesn't spread is much of a threat to anyone.
I'm no longer astounded by your logic, I'm actively stupefied by it. We are all now dumber having read your post. I hope you're happy.
Re: Aah natural selection... (Score:3)
Clearly you have not been following along.
The legal issue is the difference in treatment.
Limits in religious buildings were 10 people and 25 people, even in buildings designed for thousands.
Limits in non-religious buildings were a percentage of occupancy, such as 25%, 33%, 50%.
The difference was not based on what people did, was not based on singing, or eating/drinking, or mask wearing, or air filtration, or any data. Simply being a religious building meant tight restrictions, even when a non-religious grou
Re: Aah natural selection... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, there's no need for differing standards. When there is a spike in infections, all non-essential indoor gatherings should be prohibited. Since communication with an omniscient being can be done from anywhere, physically congregating is unnecessary. I would put churches in the same category as night clubs, sporting events and music festivals.
Two day old fish paper (Score:2)
Not based on science. (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York regulations were *severely* scientifically flawed as written, and the court was entirely justified in shooting them down. In particular:
That last one is a show-stopper. There is zero scientific support whatsoever for saying that an eleventh person attending an outdoor worship service with ten or twenty feet between family groups poses any risk of spreading coronavirus, much less enough of a risk to be justification for violating someone's first-amendment rights. Yet that's effectively what New York's rules said.
New York's rules weren't just a little bit over the line. They were so ridiculously far over the line of unconstitutionality that you couldn't see the line behind you when standing next to them. And I say that as someone who in all of the court's history has never agreed with the conservative side of the court before. This should have been a 9-0 open-and-shut case. I'm embarrassed that the liberal side of the court chose to defend such clearly unconstitutional and unreasonable rules.
Lawyer: and the court *shouldn't* rely on science (Score:5, Informative)
I am a lawyer, but there is no legal advice to be found in this post. If you need that, pay my retainer.
The big problem in most of the coverage of the decision is the misguided notion that the *court* should be relying on science. It absolutely, utterly, should not.
The court should be relying on the law, and does not get to decide for itself what is "best," nor how to interpret it.
The court got it right here: it didn't make scientific findings itself, but rather found that the challenged rules failed to rationally apply the science.
*This* is the basis for judicial review in a free society, not getting to the "best result".
Often reasonable and rational people could differ as to the best choice or meaning of the data. In that case, there is no role for the court (as long as one of the rational choices is made, that is--if with three rational choices the administrator chose an irrational fourth choice, the court strikes the choice and sends it back; it doesn't choose one of the other three).
It is further complicated in this case by being a federal court reviewing a state action. If a state has rights *not* found in federal jurisprudence (e.g., california's jury trial for all misdemeanors), the federal courts will generally have no jurisdiction in challenging actions regarding them. Rather, for federal court involvement, the state action has to impede impermissibly on a federal right, as was the case here.
hawk, esq.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Which is why Brown v. Board of Education should have outlawed segregated schools based on the 14th Amendment, as opposed to citing psychological studies on the harms of segregation.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely.
The *manner* in which Brown came down is problematic itself (as well as undercutting itself).
Re: (Score:3)
> everything will be thrown out.
Nope, you should read the opinion. Religious organizations still have to meet the same standards as other public accommodations. But Cuomo's special religious targeting is thrown out. Equal Protection is a *good thing*.
> Not the best outcome if trying not to kill people is a priority.
The American tradition puts safety down the list. Freedom from tyranny is at the top. cf. Blackstone's Formulation.
The wonderful thing about air travel is that people who don't like the
Re:Not based on science (Score:4, Informative)
After receiving evidence and hearing witness testimony, the District Court in the Diocese’s case found that New York’s regulations were “crafted based on science and for epidemiological purposes.” ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6120167, *10 (EDNY, Oct. 16, 2020). It wrote that they treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than simi- lar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lec- tures, concerts or theatrical performances.” Id., at *9. The court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regu- lations treated religious gatherings less favorably than what the State has called “essential businesses,” including, for example, grocery stores and banks. Ibid. But the court found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s judgment about what should qualify as an essential busi- ness.” Ibid. The District Court denied the motion for a pre- liminary injunction. The Diocese appealed, and the District Court declined to issue an emergency injunction pending that appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also denied the Diocese’s request for an emergency injunc- tion pending appeal, but it called for expedited briefing and scheduled a full hearing on December 18 to address the merits of the appeal. This Court, unlike the lower courts, has now decided to issue an injunction that would prohibit the State from enforcing its fixed-capacity restrictions on houses of worship in red and orange zones while the parties await the Second Circuit’s decision.
Thus the reviewed rules under the injunction have been thrown out. The epidemiologist in the room would want everyone to social distance and wouldn’t be prioritizing every last business as essential.
Let’s see here... (Score:2)
Whelp, nothing we can do now except hand out printed versions of the ruling to coronavirus letting it know that it can’t threaten li
Re:Let’s see here... (Score:4, Insightful)
If weed shops are considered essential, then why aren't churches?
Re: (Score:2)
If weed shops are considered essential, then why aren't churches?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Re: (Score:2)
If weed shops are considered essential, then why aren't churches?
If America had an actual shutdown for everyone for a month (not just those who deemed themselves unessential) and imposed a two week quarantine on all international travelers, we would have almost completely stamped out the virus like half the world including third world countries were able to do. Hell, all Japan did was people actually all wore masks and social distanced and are vastly beating American numbers per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
They are considered essential because in most states its "medicinal".
Re: Let’s see here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the ruling came down that, because waaay to many people were considered essential and not shut down, religious gatherings shouldn’t be shut down either. All while the only reason the US needs these measures again is because there was no national plan and not early enough compliance with basic safety measures like masks and social distancing in the first place.
Whelp, nothing we can do now except hand out printed versions of the ruling to coronavirus letting it know that it can’t threaten lives by religious affiliation before a tragic and fatal misunderstanding occurs.
It's not merely a matter of "way too many people being considered essential".
Throughout this post, people are suggesting that churches are a problem because they attract people... "too many people" if I read between the lines correctly.
Where was the outrage when the politicians declared "churches cannot meet"? It didn't happen. But the outrage did appear when the politicians said "cancel Thanksgiving." SMH.
This is why the center-right rolls its eyes (Score:4, Insightful)
And this proves the danger of allowing some asshole in academia who is "law illiterate" to make policy. The 1A doesn't allow for these draconian restrictions. Are the people often being foolish? Yes, and I say that as a conservative Christian who has stayed home, wears a mask, etc.** and I'm also at an elevated risk due to having an autoimmune disease.
Public health "experts" were also taking stands refusing to denounce the riots and protests over the summer. In fact, there was a lot of "don't you dare use this to justify not listening to us" added to them supporting the protesters. Oddly enough, the Supreme Court actually noticed all of this and basically said "yeah, no, this is not a Level 4 bio hazard, and you people clearly are jokers."
** No, I'm not a unicorn too, but that's for asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I say that as a conservative Christian who has stayed home, wears a mask, etc.
Are you a unicorn?
No, I'm not a unicorn too, but that's for asking.
I should have kept reading... I'm sorry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1A doesn't allow for these draconian restrictions.
What does "1A" have to do with public health measures?
Re: (Score:3)
The Pope needs to take more control (Score:2)
The Pope has made statements in favor of distancing, yet, here are his representatives, his bishops, suing for the right to ignore distancing orders.
The Pope needs to take a more hands-on approach to US bishops. Perhaps, had he done this, the church might not be paying out so much in settlements for the various abuse claims.
Drtctr of the Center for Sustainable Development? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. That was the time when people thought illnesses were either humour imbalances, or the result of bad air or a curse. Neither Louis Pasteur nor Robert Koch have been born yet at that time.
Misleading summary (Score:3, Informative)
"In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities." Page 3 of the ruling.
"Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately affected by the Executive Order can seat at least 500 people, about 14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up to 400. It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows."
Most of the news ignores this context, but when you read the whole thing it looks more like pushing the city to re-consider it's essential vs. non-essential businesses and to apply regulations in a fair way. In times like this people need mental and emotional and spiritual support not just health support; why should an acupuncture clinic be allowed to admit 25 or 50 people when a 1,000 person church can only admit 10?
This looks a lot more like applying fair standards across the board to me rather than religion vs. science.
Let's take this statement here too:
"Finally, it has not been shown that granting the applications will harm the public. As noted, the State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants’ services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperiled if less restrictive measures were imposed."
There's a lot of attempts to contextualize this as right-leaning ruling from the court, but that statement eliminates that. A court case is decided solely on the merits of the arguments presented in the court. That statement says the applicants claimed they were harmed and presented evidence as such, and the State in the Defense failed to argue that the restrictions on religious services slowed the spread in any way, particularly given that they allow larger gatherings in other cases and those did not show any spread. So it's not a dictatorial ruling, rather it's a failure of the Defense to present a meaningful argument supporting the challenged regulations. Blame the Defense for being under prepared, not the court.
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit I have been a bit unscientific in my opinions about the seating limits in churches here too. Massive air volumes due to high roofs, only filled for an hour or so ... yet people density needs to be two orders of magnitude less than a supermarket with vastly inferior ventilation.
Damn my unscientific mind.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, this isn't a religion-versus-science issue at all. This is a consistency issue. Various headlines write it that way, but their bias is showing.
In New York's case, religious buildings in red and orange zones were limited to 10 people or 25 people maximum. Non-religious buildings were limited to 25% and 50% capacity. That is inconsistent.
If there was evidence that one type of building had different transmission rates that would have been different, but there was no apparent evidence nor justification, merely that the building served a religious purpose so it was given a tight restriction. Since their was no other factor other than it being a religious building, this is de-facto religious discrimination, which is illegal in this country.
If both religious and non-religious were limited to the same rates it wouldn't be a problem. SCOTUS got this right.
Hot Take From CNN and The Times (Score:4, Insightful)
What bunch of bullshit hot takes from CNN and The Times.
The Times concludes that "If unconstrained religious observance and public safety were sometimes at odds, as the governor and other public officials maintained, the court ruled that religious freedom should win out."
No you fucking assholes. His rules were overturned because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”. You can't arbitrarily discriminated against religious groups, that is unconstitutional. The governor limited religious services to 10 or 25 people, but private businesses were limited based on the occupancy limits of their building. So a giant cathedral with an occupancy limit of 700 was only allowed 25 people, the same as some private businesses with a capacity limit of 50. Worst of all they knew they were in the wrong, which is why they changed the rules before it got to the supreme court. This ruling won't change existing COVID restrictions in New York, it was pushed to the supreme court so they could get a ruling blocking other states from pulling the same crap.
The idiot they should be going after is Sotomayor with this nonsense [bloomberg.com]:
In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said New York actually was giving houses of worship “preferential treatment” relative to comparable secular activities like movies and spectator sports.
So religious beliefs are important enough that they are protected by the first amendment, and even private businesses can't discriminate based on religion. But according to Sotomayor they belong in the same category as spectator sports.
Re: (Score:3)
they changed the rules before it got to the supreme court. This ruling won't change existing COVID restrictions in New York,
So the the conservative justices on the supreme court are just virtue signaling and should have just stayed out of it.
Your last point is nonsense. Generally from an epidemiological standpoint, church services and spectator sports have a lot in common. By pretending that isn't true you just show your prejudice.
Re:Hot Take From CNN and The Times (Score:5, Insightful)
So the the conservative justices on the supreme court are just virtue signaling and should have just stayed out of it.
No the governor's office should have conceded once they realized they were wrong. It should never have gone to the supreme court, it should never have gone to any court. They were just being stubborn jackasses.
Your last point is nonsense. Generally from an epidemiological standpoint, church services and spectator sports have a lot in common. By pretending that isn't true you just show your prejudice.
Which is completely irrelevant. The government derives it's authority from the constitution, and the bill of rights puts strict limits on those powers. The government can be 100% completely and totally correct scientifically, doesn't matter. The government's authority doesn't come from being scientifically correct, it comes from the constitution. And the first amendment is very clear that certain rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion shall not be infringed. From a legal standpoint spectator sports and religion at not alike at all. When the governor tried to single out religious services for stricter measures than private business he was trying to exercise authority that constitution explicitly states he does not have.
The only virtue signalling here was from the usual gang of activist judges who think that government authority is based, not on constitution and it's amendments, but on what they feel like granting it on that particular day.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh my (Score:4, Insightful)
Churches need to step up and be subject to the standard everyone else is.
Why on earth would they? America, one of the last bastions of the religious nutters in the west has enshrined religion in its founding constitution.
The cornerstone of this country is that organized superstition is above the control of government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
We've carved the greatest exception to adherence to rule of law out for sufficiently large enough shared delusions. Why is anyone surprised when that goes badly?
While I understand why the founding fathers thought this was necessary, they failed to put some guardrails in place. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, provided that religion does not indoctrinate children and does not pose a danger to its members or society at large."
A few more guardrails and we could actually control actively harmful religions. As it is, we struggle to prosecute or prevent the evils committed by religion, because we never put such guardrails in.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Interesting)
"America, one of the last bastions of the religious nutters in the west has enshrined religion in its founding constitution."
The US enshrined freedom from religious persecution in its constitution, along with explicitly secular governance. Religion, specifically Christianity, was added back in the 1950s, and only in various laws and customs, not to the US constitution.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Informative)
"America, one of the last bastions of the religious nutters in the west has enshrined religion in its founding constitution."
The US enshrined freedom from religious persecution in its constitution, along with explicitly secular governance. Religion, specifically Christianity, was added back in the 1950s, and only in various laws and customs, not to the US constitution.
You see "In God we Trust" on printed currency.
You see taxpayer dollars supporting religious activities, monuments on government land, and religious discrimination in government programs.
You see the phrase "under God" which was added to the Oath of Allegiance in 1954, in an attempt to differentiate the USA from "godless" Comunism.
And in that same Oath, you see the US flag elevated to an object of veneration, ironically running afoul of the anti-idolatry provisions of the three main Abrahamic religions.
Freedom from religion indeed.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. All added in and since the 50s, and arguably in blatant opposition to the US constitution. I'm not arguing that the US is not the closest thing the west has to a theocracy. I'm pointing out that the founding documents of the US explicitly create a secular nation, in contrast to the Christian nations of Europe. Post WWII, most of the west continued secularizing while the US resacralized for a variety of reasons, including communist hysteria and the rise of extremely vocal evangelic special interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly not an American. It's called the Pledge of Allegiance, not "Oath".
Go home Vlad.
Actually I'm a Canadian ex-pat living in the USA. That's an embarrassing gaffe. You're right. The Oath of Allegiance is taken when you become a citizen. The Pledge is what you recite after you are a citizen.
Thanks for the improvement.
Re:Oh my (Score:4, Informative)
provided that religion does not indoctrinate children
By definition, all religions are cults. Cults indoctrinate their members [cambridge.org]. That's how cults work. It would antithetical to say a religion can't indoctrinate children when the entire point of the religion is indoctrination.
and does not pose a danger to its members or society at large.
Again, since the point is to indoctrinate a particular view, that view could very well pose a danger to its members (see Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal to accept blood transfusions) or society at large (witness the Orthodox Jewish community in New York which was responsible for the largest measles outbreak this country has seen in decades and their current disobeyance of social distancing by having a wedding with 7,000 guests [usnews.com]).
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Ambrose Bierce, in "The Devil's Dictionary":
cult (n.) - a small, unpopular religion
religion (n.) - a large, popular cult
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was exactly my point.
We can't address these issues with a constitution that explicitly states that the state can't put guardrails on religion. Now that Mitch has packed the courts with conservative religious people, we should expect to see problems like these exacerbated. If judges won't place a higher value on human life than someone's freedom to believe bullshit and act upon it, we can excuse almost anything for a religion.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. In the same way the state saying "You can't murder people" is telling them what to think.
It's a set of secular rules that guarantee safety and equity for civilisation. And you can believe what you want inside these rules, but you can't act outside of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh my (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, indoctrinating in people ideas such as, "no you don't have the freedom to own other people". The Republican Party was founded on social justice with Lincoln having the wide awake movement pushing his election.
Lots of people don't like their freedom limited by things like not owning others or not being able to steal and don't seem to understand that freedom does not mean infringing on others freedoms.
Equality of Opportunity vs Outcome (Score:3)
If only Republicans recognized that.
If only Democrats realized the "swapping" notion is false. The two parties want the same thing, they merely differ on how to get there. To crudely explain the difference, the Republicans believe in an equality of opportunity, the Democrats an equality of outcomes.
Re: (Score:3)
Great. this cretinous propaganda slogan again. a popular bit of mindless sloganeering, but not even remotely true.
If Republicans, or anyone else, actually "believed in equality of opportunity" then they'd be doing everything they possibly could to eliminate poverty and racism and misogyny and every other structural and systemic obstacle to opportunity that they can. They don't do
Re: (Score:3)
WTF, you're the guys with a Supreme ruler who is above the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the Mueller report, can't even investigate the President as he is the President. Here, he may have been fired for nepotism, hiring his family is very unethical.
Re:Oh my (Score:4, Informative)
Churches need to step up and be subject to the standard everyone else is.
They are subject to the same standard. The court said the Constitution protects the exercise of religion. The court also said the Constitution protects the right of assembly, so the government can't prevent people from protesting either. You forgot to mention that part of the ruling.
Different standard, that's the problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
They were actually subject to a different standard. It was a looser standard (more people were allowed than at a similar non-religious gathering). But the Supreme Court ruled that because the religious meetings had a different line item, they could not be more limited than any other line item (like grocery stores.) I expect the law to be repassed without the religious line item and religious groups will end up unable to perform services at all in the most severe cases as opposed to in groups of 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Article said a lot more than that, but reading slash-comments as they engage in religion bashing.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
"the right to put people in danger by doing something nobody else is allowed to do." If Jesus came back today, he'd be throwing the priests out of the temples before he'd even look at the money changers.
Regarding the latter part of your statement - no argument.
The first part of your statement, however, isn't quite right. Riot/protesting is okay, attending church is not. I live in L.A. - I've witnessed the protesting up close. To condone protesting yet shut down churches is genuinely unfair, and specifically prevented within the Constitution.
What staggers me is that Churches of all entities wouldn't actually be more cooperative.
Even more staggering to me are the crowds at Costco - I suspect church would be safer given the lack of social distancing and the careless mask-wearers. ...the irony is that the opening of the economy will always lead to more cases, which further restrict churches from meeting. I would be irritated too, if I were told I couldn't meet because others were making it impossible....
MacArthur's church is the outlier here. Several churches ask to meet in socially distant, mask-wearing congregations. The restrictions are a tad arbitrary for churches: 10% or 100, whichever is smaller. Meanwhile, the local shopping malls were opened to 25% then 50% capacity. I tend to think humans are pretty cooperative when the rules are fair; the churchgoers I know don't complain about masks or social distancing and are among the most thoughtful and caring I've encountered, serving in ways well beyond the average. They also are quick to notice when the rules permit gambling, liquor stores, CBD dispensaries, and other "essentials" don't apply to congregations...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, protesting is in the same amendment as religious services. But the point that the protestors made is that there was an active and immediate need to protest then - they couldn't wait until later because the police were actively killing people. I don't know everyone's religion, but most
Re: (Score:2)
Well, protesting is in the same amendment as religious services. But the point that the protestors made is that there was an active and immediate need to protest then - they couldn't wait until later because the police were actively killing people. I don't know everyone's religion, but most don't condemn you to hell for taking a break from formal church services during a pandemic.
Actually, I believe churches *did* take a break.
Remember, back around March 2020, when we were asked/told to stay home for a couple weeks? Churches closed down too.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Funny)
Riot/protesting is okay, attending church is not. I live in L.A. - I've witnessed the protesting up close. To condone protesting yet shut down churches is genuinely unfair, and specifically prevented within the Constitution.
You bring up a valid point. I would prefer for religious gatherings to be just as "okay", to use your own word, as protest gatherings.
Complete with deployment of riot police, liberal use of tear gas and rubber bullets, etc.
Re:Oh my (Score:4, Informative)
The scientific evidence, on the other hand, is pretty clear, and scientists in the field haven't exactly been at odds with one another on social distancing.
Distancing, sure. But distancing does not mean limiting outdoor, physically distanced worship to a maximum of ten or twenty-five people in total. There is zero scientific justification for the nonsense rules that New York came up with.
The court made the right call, both constitutionally and scientifically.
Re: (Score:3)
Recently, there was a religious wedding ceremony held in Brooklyn, in secret, with about 7000 attendees, indoors, with no social distancing, no masks.
So by your logic, rather than pass down a million-dollar fine against the religious institution as an object lesson to anybody else who might be considering holding a grossly unsafe wedding ceremony, the right thing to do is ban church weddings outright. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is supposed to work. You figure out a reasonable set of rules, and then you enforce them. You don't come up with an unreasonable set of rules, then not enforce them, then claim that people violating the rules are th
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
With the understanding that later SC decisions incorporated this against the States - you can replace "Congress" with "State or Federal Government".
Now, argue that the State or Federal Government has the right to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you first explain why you bible thumpers getting together is so important that that your right to assemble and thus spread a deadly pandemic outweighs the value of thousands human lives?
Sure, but first I have a question for you: Why can everyone else can do what they want but "bible thumpers" cannot even meet together to worship?
My answer:
Churches closed down along with the rest of the USA.
Then the rest of the USA were reopened but churches were explicitly excluded from said reopening.
And I'm supposed to think that is "okay"?
Considering the numbers "spiked" in spite of churches being effectively shut down pretty much means the superspreader events were elsewhere.
Ergo, stop blaming "bible thumpers" for the acts of others.
Re: (Score:3)
Churches *can* (and many do) provide their sermons remotely. Physical presence is not a requirement for to worship your deity of choice.
Remote sermons are a safer (and in many ways, a better) experience.
I do not see how requiring churches to follow the same guidelines as other places of business is somehow constraining freedom of religion. If anything, remote sermons open up religion to a much wider audience.
You're missing the #1 fundamental purpose of churches: the collection plate. It's harder to fleece the flock over Zoom.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
You're acting as if churches aren't trying to be cooperative.
This is incorrect.
But look how things are being handled.
Up until this ruling:
You could put HUNDREDS of people into a Walmart.
You could show up in the THOUSANDS for a riot.
But going to church?
Groups of 10-25 at the most. NO EXCEPTIONS!
In congregations numbering in the thousands.
How do you hold Sunday service for 2000 people 25 at a time?
New York has single facilities that can accommodate upwards of SIX THOUSAND PEOPLE.
This isn't "we should pack 10,000 people together, naked, and coughing all over one another, then send them out to hug and cough all over everyone else!"
This is allowing the church and the diocese REAL input into planning services in a safe, sane manner.
NOT just telling them to have 500 services a day for 25 people each while 10,000 are stomping around, busting windows and screaming about how they're oppressed .
Re: Oh my (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire point of the ruling was that there was nothing science or fact based about how the ban was written.
Re: (Score:3)
The order was bad and marginally stupid, but there was clear evidence of transmission in communities going unchecked as a part of “religious freedom.” As such, the court should not have been deciding primarily on those grounds. Public officials should be held accountable when restrictions on co
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all about consistency. I think the SCOTUS got this one right.
New York instituted a 10-person and 25-person caps on attendance at religious buildings in areas classified as red and orange infection zones. But non-religious buildings where people met in similar ways were limited to 25% and 50% capacity.
This would have been fine if applied equally to all places people gather. If both religious and non-religious locations were limited to 10 people or 25 people, or if both religious and non-religious locations were limited to 25% and 50% of building capacity. But applying different standards to religious buildings and non-religious buildings is religious discrimination on its face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the intent of the law wasn't to discriminate between "religious" vs "non religious" venues. Its intent was to discriminate between venues where people spread Covid more easily (e.g. by singing indoors in a church) from venues where people don't spread Covid so easily (e.g. outdoor venues, most grocery stores (which have foot traffic flow management to reduce covid spread, etc)).
This is the part SCOTUS got wrong. They viewed the law as being about religion, because the law could be applied to a church
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution is seldom as cut-and-dry as people believe it is. If you look at Constitutional law, it's littered with "reasonable person" tests -- situations where the courts have to appeal to real-world common sense.
That's because it's too simplistic to think about the rights of an individual without taking into account the impact on the rights of *other* individuals. In real life, courts are more often called up on to judge where the right of someone to swing their arm meets someone else's nose than they are to decide on something that can be completely cleared up just by looking inside the Constitution.
Right vs. wrong is easy. Right vs. right, and wrong vs. wrong -- those things are hard.
Here's an interesting fact: the single largest religious group in the US is Protestant Christianity; almost exactly half of Americans are Protestant, but only one justice is protestant (Gorsuch), and he's an Anglo-Catholic who was raised Catholic. Seven of the nine justices are either Catholic or Anglo-Catholic.
This is the result of the Republicans trying to pack the court with anti-abortion judges. As a result the court is wildly unrepresentative of mainstream American experiences and viewpoints. Now if you believe that what the courts do is generate legal theorems using the Constitution as postulates, that's not a problem. But it's not so good if the court needs to exercise common sense and restraint.
Re: (Score:3)
Viruses don't change their behavior based on the First Amendment. The universe cannot be altered by an 18th century document. The Supreme Court does not have the power to prevent communicable pathogens from spreading.
Much like the virus doesn't know what time it is (10pm curfews, really?) nor does the virus know whether I'm shopping or eating (shopping indoors permitted, eating outdoors at a restauring is not, really?).
The arrogance and stupidity of this ruling are staggering.
I have a hard time believing the highest court in the land is more stupid than you. But, I'm willing to hear your argument. :-)
The basic issue is churches want the rules to apply equally, yet local politicians didn't give them a fair shake. So they took to the courts and got the ruling that leveled the playing field so that they can meet together just like groups of protesters. Seems fair enough to me.
As mentioned elsewhere, I shop at Costco. I love Costco. But if there is such a thing as a superspreader event this would check many boxes. To imagine that shopping at Costco is "safe" versus hanging with my family on Thanksgiving being "not safe"... wow.
Re: Oh my (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The universe didn't read your Constitution.
It cannot overrule reality.
Ditto on the bible. Sorry religious nutters.
Did you read the ruling? If you did you would have noticed it mentions the restrictions on religious meetings cannot be constrained. Nor can any other gathering... like protesting.
Besides, what reality are you referring to?
The one that says "re-opening the economy" will lead to more COVID cases?
Sure, let's keep the economy closed because the universe will ensure a closed economy will lead to zero deaths.
Re:Oh my (Score:5, Interesting)
The metric that should have been applied is "are religious gatherings being treated any differently than non-religious gatherings?"
Bingo.
And since they *were* treated differently, churches sued to ask to have the same rights as everyone else, and the SCOTUS agreed.
And this is a "bad thing"?
Re: Editing iz hard (Score:2)
Compiling comment .... Error: Sentence literally unparsable.
Re: Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:2, Offtopic)
Internet not shit anymore now?
TrueScore: -1, Sellout
Re: (Score:3)
How does this not get flagged as ASCII art, while the one time I put four periods in a row, I can't post?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have given you +1 something, except the fact that you speak about the "Left's street thugs" makes your whole discourse shakey.
I am white, middle class, high income, but I loathe white conservatives, because the things that I like, technology and science, cannot be practised by conservative people, only by people looking forward, by people who dare to drop their preconceptions and myths and dare to embrace reality, how ugly it might be.
Religious institutions and conservative groups should be burned
Re: Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Talk about making your whole discourse shaky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that conservatives, and Ted Cruz in particular, believe that Government should be allowed to control internet companies and force them to pay to transmit whatever they desire for free. Twitter especially.
Re: Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives believe government should be limited in nature? Yeah sure, until it comes to oil subsidies, coal subsidies, enough nuclear missiles to destroy humanity 10 times over, farm subsidies, and more. Conservatives haven't been about small government since before the Reagan years. They just like putting the subsidies in different places.
Conservatives like people to earn their way and don't like handouts? First, see the above paragraph. And don't get me started about slavery and the "kickstart" effect it had on the white population in this country. Conservatives LOVE to deny that the white population is still benefitting from the structural racism that persisted in this country for CENTURIES up into about the 1960s. Incidentally, before the 1960s, the Democrats were the party of institutional racism. After the 1960s, the Republicans took on that role. But still. conservatives across the board are hypocritical about this. Try being enslaved for 300 years and then suddenly you're expected to play "on a level playing field" with people that have more money, more training, and better gear.
Conservatives believe that life is sacred? Sure, as long as it's cute little babies that we're talking about. Your attitudes towards the death penalty suggests the opposite. So many brown people have wound up on death row, they sit there for a few decades, then suddenly accurate genetic testing comes along and BOOM a bunch of them are exonerated. Turns out a bunch of them were innocent. Just got railroaded by a bunch of white juries and prosecutors. Innocent lives being snuffed out all along. Guess conservatives are ok with that. It's so bad that some red states are literally refusing to process genetic tests on their death row inmates until a federal judge threatens to put officials into prison. Then, when the tests come back, boom another railroaded black man gets released. Plenty of death row inmates are guilty as sin, but conservatives don't seem to care much about the innocent ones. Just sweep it under the carpet and the problem will take care of itself eh?
On the matter of this case, I think the supreme court called it right because the constitution provides special protections for religion. It's the god-given right of these places to act like booger-eating morons and get a bunch of their church/synagogue members sick. Fine, but remember, when the hospital ICUs overflow, the doctors have to triage. Some people gets the oxygen and others get some morphine and a cot in a hallway while they recover on their own or die. I sincerely hope the doctors put the responsible people at the front of the line. Hey, that would be the CONSERVATIVE approach, right? Actions have consequences?
Re: (Score:3)
That lead to racism.
That's the most fucking insane thing I'll hear all day. That labour was exploitable because of racism on the scale of people-owning and non-representation being accepted depending on the colour of one's skin. The exploitation of that labor continuing post-emancipation lead to racism? Holy shit.
Re:Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:4, Insightful)
False Equivalency - intellectual cop out (Score:5, Insightful)
the far left and far right are 2 sides of the same coin with a naive Utopian view of the world in their image with them as dictators and think they know everything and are correct about everything.
You need to pick a side. You can't be neutral. This is just a bunch of bullshit for weak minds who know one side is right and the other is wrong, but don't want to be controversial. Sorry fella, the stakes are too high. It's like living in the Gaza strip, either your land is taken over or your friends are being killed by terrorists (or some variant of severe consequences). If you're having your land seized and/or your friend and family killed, you can't really say "both sides suck." I am a center-left guy. Yeah, liberals annoy the shit out of me, but they don't threaten my life. No hippie dipshit has ever threatened my life or proclaimed his readiness to kill me. No annoying college trust fund shithead woman with hairy legs and armpits and a huge sense of entitlement ever marched on my state capital with the deadliest guns she could purchase. Few liberals are walking around stores without masks, against mask policy saying they have some "personal freedom" reason to spread COVID. None are claiming "religious liberty" to go spread it either.
...and that's not even factoring in the economic cost. How many of these dumbasses will fully pay their medical bills or will the gov have to step in and cover the difference?
Here's my metric, body count. How many died in the last 20 years due to ideologically-inspired terrorists? How many mass shootings were carried out in the name of "conservative" nutjobs and how many from "liberal" ones? How did each movement respond to the nutjobs? Fox news, OAN, and Newsmax were quick to hail Rittenhouse a hero. Tucker Carlson said he "maintained order when no one else would." No liberal defended the liberal shithead who shot Steve Scalise. Every liberal disavowed him, labeled him a criminal, and wished for him to be brought to justice quickly.
And yeah, a few posted...OK, good, a few less inconsiderate zealots, Darwin in action....well, I'm not religious and their stupidity impacts me. If a loved one of mine gets sick, will they have to fly to another state to find an open ventilator because a bunch of zealots overloaded our hospital? How many front-line workers will catch it because of these idiots. These Darwin Awards have a habit of taking innocent people down with them.
So yeah, there are idiots on both sides, but one side's idiots are a direct threat to my safety, health and life...and that of the community as a whole. They're proud to threaten you, me, or anyone who annoys them and brandish their guns a disturbing amount of times, a perpetual reminder they can end your life at whim. The other side's idiots? They're annoying...they say mean things on twitter. They make me want to punch them. I'm sure someone, somewhere has died at their hands, but I don't know any off the top of my head. However, they just simply haven't nearly as many as the other's. If one side kills over 20x the number of people as the other, there's really no comparison. Sorry buddy, you have to pick a side.
Re:Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:5, Insightful)
But the author and you seem to place the left on a pedestal...every leftist must accept everything...and if they can't, obviously they are "against unwelcome thoughts."
The curious thing is, last I checked, Rowling - although rumored to be richer than the Queen mum herself - and having to "endure being disowned by actors and actress who owe their good fortune to her creations"...is still writing book and making movies.
Movies, that, until recently, starred Johnny Depp.
But I digress. I'm not going to bother to how you how both sides do the same thing. I doubt you care.
If you honestly think you live in an age of Cant now - because people are denouncing views of Hunt, Rowling...because groups are denouncing the Dixie Chicks or because Baptists are once again boycotting Disney World....
Re:Dissident Thanksgiving (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey whatever happened to that Caravan? Weren't they supposed to be here by now, raping our daughters and selling crack to pre-schoolers?
And whatever happened to all the hue and cry about Hunter Biden's laptop? Seems like as soon as trump lost it was *magically* of no interest to anyone. Hmmm.
Hey, did Mexico ever pay for that wall? Asking for a friend.
Did Infrastructure Week ever happen? No? Well, maybe next time, right?
Are you enjoying the "big beautiful" healthcare plan that would "cover everyone at a fraction of the cost"? Oh, right, that never happened either.
But at least trump totally solved the deficit, right? Wait, you say the deficit increased by $6.6 trillion under Trump? Gosh, and he said it would be "so simple" to fix that.
I could go on, but it's not worth it. Trump is a total and utter failure as a human and as a president.
Re:Just stay away. (Score:5, Informative)
We are doomed because of the Trump Christian Loser Cult. Really, EVERY Trump Supporting loser I know is also a Christian.
Degree of Difficulty -
From the ruling:
"Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerry-mandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included."
The trump hatefest is well deserved. But let's at least try to get the supposition a little bit correct?
Just a little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, everyone who calls themselves "Christian", really isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, everyone who calls themselves "Christian", really isn't.
Details, please?
Re: (Score:2)
70% of the US self-identifies as Christian. So the "Christian" modifier could easily be spurious correlation.
Re:Just stay away. (Score:4, Interesting)
EVERY Trump Supporting loser I know is also a Christian.
I voted for Trump. Twice. I am an atheist. There is little chance that you are smarter than I am or better educated.
Georgia's Senators are both criminals who made millions trading on insider information.
Yep. Unfortunately, we have a choice of criminals right now. It's either the Fascist "Democratic" Party or 2 corrupt senators. 2 corrupt senators is the lesser of 2 evils.
Re:Just stay away. (Score:5, Insightful)
By your own admission you voted (twice) for Trump, that means that 100% of the population are at least as smart as you and most are infinitely smarter.
It's possible to be a smart person and vote for Trump, if you're also an evil piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that isn't what the lawsuit was about.
New York instituted a 10-person and 25-person caps on attendance at religious buildings in areas classified as red and orange infection zones. But non-religious buildings where people met in similar ways were limited to 25% and 50% capacity.
This would have been fine if applied equally to all places people gather. If both religious and non-religious locations were limited to 10 people or 25 people, or if both religious and non-religious locations were limited to 25%
Re: (Score:2)
"much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic"
Hey everyone, there's a moron over there, that means we should be morons too!
The opening paragraph of the US Constitution reads "promote the general Welfare" which is, roughly, a statement about fairness. It goes on to expressly allow religious *and* non-religious gatherings. You can't stop one without stopping the other.
That has to be the dumbest legal argument I've heard in a country suffering from extraordinarily high case load and death rates.
If we settled everything that led to death with legal rulings, sales of cigarettes, sugar, trans-fats, automobiles, airplanes, and roundup would be outright banned.
Excess death rates, however, are a reasonable argument. I'm not sure we've reached "extraordinarily hi