Supreme Court blocks New York City attendance limits for religious events

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Constitutionally how are they different?

Well, as the Constitution makes no provision for what government can do in order to protect the nation from the ravages of a pandemic, I suppose they may not be any different. So okay, everybody get out there and spread it around. What's a few hundred thousand more dead and permanently altered for the worse?

And the good news is, while the hospitals will be completely overwhelmed, there'll be lots of people praying for the miracle that makes it all better.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So how we serve god should be restricted by others?

What, God can't hear you from home? He needs everybody yelling out loud together?

Who knew?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Exactly the point. In your opinion food is more important than serving god. And you think others should be required to share your opinion on that. And yes, actually, food and clothing are not as important as serving god.

God is omnipotent -- omnipotence doesn't require service.

 

[SomeRandom]

Spreading disease in the name of God, I see.
I’d hate to be those idiots on Judgement day
God “You know, you’re supposed to care about your fellow man, right?”
Jerk who wilfully allowed disease to spread
“Yeah but I had to go to Church. How else can I pray to you?”
God “You know I can hear you from any location, right? I am omnipotent after all. Smh. I should have given you a better brain”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

G-d doesn’t say to ignore the disease. Don’t argue a straw man. G-d wants us to observe His miztvot while doing it in a way that is safe.

There is no evidence that religious gatherings, per se, increase risk for spreading Covid-19.

There is a gigantic amount of evidence that ANY gatherings, religious or otherwise, increase the risk of spread. And the length of those gatherings has a direct correllation, and the same is also true of what those gathered are doing. If they are cheering (at a sports event) or singing Hallelujah at a religious event, they are spreading aerosolized droplets among those around them. And if one of those attendees happens to be shedding virus...you can figure out the rest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, a state is NOT the final authority on the public health. The Body Politic at large is.

This seems like nonsense to me. How does the "Body Politic at large" exercise any authority at all? Individual members of that BP may wish not to be infected, but if an infected individual decides to join the group and cough all over everybody, what then?

That is why we elect governments and enact laws -- because without them, there's no control.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Preserving the life and health of the public is NECESSARY.

Unless, apparently for some, you have more important things to worry about, like whether God will punish you for skipping a service in order to protect your family, and a lot of others, too.

Me? I think any God worthy of the name would get over it, in a hurry.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like the law was poorly written, and so was eventually struck down. The actual precedent of the state being able to dictate behavior (religious or otherwise) based on public safety remains intact, as it should be.

In reality 'human nature' is poorly written

 

[Shadow Wolf]

God “You know I can hear you from any location, right? I am omnipotent after all. Smh. I should have given you a better brain”

"In a damn closet like my son said to do."

 

[bobhikes]

Well, as the Constitution makes no provision for what government can do in order to protect the nation from the ravages of a pandemic, I suppose they may not be any different. So okay, everybody get out there and spread it around. What's a few hundred thousand more dead and permantly altered for the worse?

And the good news is, while the hospitals will be completely overwhelmed, there'll be lots of people praying for the miracle that makes it all better.

It's not the supreme court's responsibility for any of what you listed. The supreme court should not make decisions other than constitutionality.

 

[SomeRandom]

"In a damn closet like my son said to do."

I mean Jesus had two dads, hung out with a bunch of guys and never married.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not the supreme court's responsibility for any of what you listed. The supreme court should not make decisions other than constitutionality.

And is that not what they did -- including the dissent of 4 Justices, including the Chief Justice?

And does that not suggest to you (as it does to me), that "constitutionality" is, at the end of the day, still a matter of opinion. And opinions, like the times, change.

Or do you suppose that "The Constitution" is eternally holy and never, ever, ever to be amended again? Or re-interpreted again, by justices who hold different opinions than the ones you have today?

 

[bobhikes]

And is that not what they did -- including the dissent of 4 Justices, including the Chief Justice?

And does that not suggest to you (as it does to me), that "constitutionality" is, at the end of the day, still a matter of opinion. And opinions, like the times, change.

Or do you suppose that "The Constitution" is eternally holy and never, ever, ever to be amended again? Or re-interpreted again, by justices who hold different opinions than the ones you have today?

Feel free to amend it or conven a new convention and rewrite it. Until the supreme court is to determine constitutionality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Exactly the point. In your opinion food is more important than serving god. And you think others should be required to share your opinion on that. And yes, actually, food and clothing are not as important as serving god.

Food and water are basics. Religion is at one of the lowest levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. One does not need to go elsewhere to pray, read or worship anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Feel free to amend it or conven a new convention and rewrite it. Until the supreme court is to determine constitutionality.

And that's fine, if you like. I'm Canadian, so I have no skin in that game.

Meantime, check out the lineups at food banks all around the nation, while millions of Americans are now food-insecure. Constitution or food? Religion, or milk for the baby? I guess it's up to Americans to choose their preferences.

I've chosen mine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In reality 'human nature' is poorly written

I disagree. Human nature is what makes us us. It is not poorly written, unless we are poorly made.

Rather, I think that human nature is most often very badly understood. And that is because too few people can see that we are an essentially conflicted species: we are driven by a nature that makes us social, but are intelligent enough to default on social norms when it's to our own benefit. Professor Jacob Needleman wrote extensively on the subject (Why Can't We Be Good?)

 

[Twilight Hue]

And is that not what they did -- including the dissent of 4 Justices, including the Chief Justice?

And does that not suggest to you (as it does to me), that "constitutionality" is, at the end of the day, still a matter of opinion. And opinions, like the times, change.

Or do you suppose that "The Constitution" is eternally holy and never, ever, ever to be amended again? Or re-interpreted again, by justices who hold different opinions than the ones you have today?

Call for a constitutional convention on the matter. Its the only way to make appropriate changes should conditions and circumstances warrant it.

So far, not a single politician has made a move in that direction.

 

[icehorse]

Exactly the point. In your opinion food is more important than serving god. And you think others should be required to share your opinion on that. And yes, actually, food and clothing are not as important as serving god.

This will sound harsh, but it seems to me that covid is more dangerous to the credulous.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Call for a constitutional convention on the matter. Its the only way to make appropriate changes should conditions and circumstances warrant it.

So far, not a single politician has made a move in that direction.

You are missing the route that Donald Trump took, which is to stack the Court. Remember what I said, deciding whether anything is "constitutional" or not is often a matter of opinion. Therefore, if a President can get a majority on the Court who reflect his opinion, then it's not necessary at all to call a constitutional convention.

 

[sun rise]

Call for a constitutional convention on the matter. Its the only way to make appropriate changes should conditions and circumstances warrant it.

The answer, of course, is to get a Democratic majority in the Senate sufficient to undo the power grab of the right over the past 4 years by expanding the court with people who will consider the law neutrally not the wishes of the extreme right.