• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump 'order's all houses of worship open.

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.
He can demand.
Governors can ignore.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.

It's constitutionally-protected. So yeah. You can't close down churches in the first place without creating a violation of religious freedom for people to assemble together.

Is it a good idea? I would guess that would be up to the individual to assess on a case-by-case basis.

I would still recommend the precautions to be still be taken from the medical community until the all-clear is sounded.

In the interest of fairness however, if somebody leaves the building because of a fire, it would not be wise to go back into a fire until it's out.

That's my piece on it.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It's constitutionally-protected. So yeah. You can't close down churches in the first place without creating a violation of religious freedom for people to assemble together.

Is it a good idea? I would guess that would be up to the individual to assess on a case-by-case basis.

I would still recommend the precautions to be still be taken from the medical community until the all-clear is sounded.

In the interest of fairness however, if somebody leaves the building because of a fire, it would not be wise to go back into a fire until it's out.

That's my piece on it.
That's not correct. No right in the Constitution is absolute. That's been demonstrated over and over again. Freedom of religion has been limited multiple times including polygamy to name just one obvious instance. I found this review informative: https://harvardpolitics.com/covers/limits-of-religious-freedom/
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.
He simply does not have that power. IMO, it's just another campaign ploy to pander to the religious right. Unfortunately, it works for him.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.
It's campaign time. He's pandering to his base. He doesn't care if governors oppose him (except for deciding which state to be declared public enemy).
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
His base already thinks he can do no wrong, and it's not like the evangelicals would ever vote democrat anyway.
Largely because he repeatedly pandered to them on the issue of abortion, plus they've by-and-large have bought into secular right-wing politics.

The reality is on abortion, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is a "pro-Life" Catholic, Roe v Wade is not likely to ever be overturned because he says it's the "law of the land" for many decades now, plus the majority of Americans simply do not want it overturned in its entirely.

Even within the "Pro-Life" camp there's no agreement, such as what about incest? rape? If abortion is "murder", and an 18 year old girl gets one, do we try her for murder and give her the death sentence or life in prison if she's convicted?

And if it were to be left up to the states, then the only groups it would affect would be young girls and/or lower income women because middle and upper-income women would be able to get an abortion in another state.

BTW, I am very much pro-life on this and other issues, but I simply do not feel that the federal nor state government should determine if a medical procedure, or the denial of one, should be mandated by the government. Talk about "government overreach", which most conservatives say they don't want.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Declares them essential. Says will over-ride governors. From what I have seen of Supreme Court rulings on quarantine, he does not have the power to over-ride governors. I am sure this will be challenged.

Time will tell if this was a wise decision or not.
Seems to me those who believe Trump favors states rights should reevaluate their reasoning.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I don't see why he would think that's necessary. His base already thinks he can do no wrong, and it's not like the evangelicals would ever vote democrat anyway.
He's behind in the polls by 11 points. He has to do something. And him being Donald Trump you can't expect it to be intelligent.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
He's behind in the polls by 11 points. He has to do something. And him being Donald Trump you can't expect it to be intelligent.

He should be focusing on the swing voters rather than those who're firmly entrenched, although it's hard to understand how anyone could've been straddling the fence this long.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
He should be focusing on the swing voters rather than those who're firmly entrenched, although it's hard to understand how anyone could've been straddling the fence this long.
He's losing older white voters, you know, those people most endangered by his bumbling through the Corona crisis. And now he tries to pander to them by killing them just a bit faster.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Largely because he repeatedly pandered to them on the issue of abortion, plus they've by-and-large have bought into secular right-wing politics.

The reality is on abortion, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is a "pro-Life" Catholic, Roe v Wade is not likely to ever be overturned because he says it's the "law of the land" for many decades now, plus the majority of Americans simply do not want it overturned in its entirely.

Even within the "Pro-Life" camp there's no agreement, such as what about incest? rape? If abortion is "murder", and an 18 year old girl gets one, do we try her for murder and give her the death sentence or life in prison if she's convicted?

And if it were to be left up to the states, then the only groups it would affect would be young girls and/or lower income women because middle and upper-income women would be able to get an abortion in another state.

BTW, I am very much pro-life on this and other issues, but I simply do not feel that the federal nor state government should determine if a medical procedure, or the denial of one, should be mandated by the government. Talk about "government overreach", which most conservatives say they don't want.
Good points.

Trump sold apartments, development pitches, etc., for decades. He could sell many people their own shoes they already own and are wearing. My guess is that's what he's done with his 'pro life' salesmanship.

He's created an illusion he's truly pro life, but I think it's only a pragmatic political position.

Look at his various statements, actions: the central American asylum seekers sent to Mexico where some will be attacked, or the 'central park 5', or the whistle blower he suggested was treasonous and should be....executed, basically:


"... But basically that person never saw the report, never saw the call. Never saw the call. Heard something, and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is — sort of like almost a spy.

"I want to know who’s the person that gave the whistle-blower the information, because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now...."
‘Spies and Treason’: Read a Transcript of Trump’s Remarks Related to the Whistle-Blower


The Catholic Church (and many other Christians) oppose the death penalty because they are pro life, for real.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It is not. That is a high risk activity that puts others at risk. There is no right to do that. It's a selfish act that's going to make this hatder on us all.
Just saying that, isn't going to remove the protections that are placed in the Constitution. It's there written as plain as day.

Mind you the source here is Cornell University.


First Amendment
 
Top