• 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!

The Constitution of the US Guarantees Absolute Religious Rights!

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
No, SCOTUS has upheld state and federal quarantine authority.

With regard to quarantine, SCOTUS upheld the authority of the state and federal governments to impose quarantines. This is from the Harvard Law site:

"The Supreme Court passed upon the validity of federal quarantine powers under the Commerce Clause and the simultaneous power held by states to implement their own quarantines in Bartlett v. Lockwood in 1896. The Court held as unquestionable the "authority of Congress to establish quarantine regulations and to protect the country as respects its commerce from contagious and infectious diseases,"[126] . It also, however, recognized that this federal power did not invalidate state laws relating to the same policy domain, citing Congress's decision "in view of the different requirements of different climates and localities and of the difficulty of framing general law upon the subject, ...to permit the several States to regulate the matter of protecting the public health as to themselves seemed best."[127] The Court thus seemed to view the federal appropriation of a power which had traditionally belonged to the states as justified under the Commerce Clause. Another case before the court in 1896 presented the more pointed question of whether state or federal laws would prevail in the case of conflict, when the federal law was enacted under the authority of the Commerce Clause and the state law enacted for the purpose of regulating health. In Hennington v. Georgia , Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

"If the inspection, quarantine, or health laws of a State, passed under its reserved power to provide for the health, comfort, safety of its people, come into conflict with an act of Congress, passed under its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, such local regulations, to the extent of the conflict, must give way in order that the supreme law of the land—an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution—may have unobstructed operation."[128]

This ruling left little question that Congress could enact quarantine laws and the Surgeon General could enforce them even if those laws conflicted with state quarantine laws."​
Thus, it would seem that the right to assembly is not absolute, at least in the context of an epidemic requiring quarantines...and that would apply to religious as well as non-religious assemblies...

In the current situation, it would seem that with no federal response enacted, it is up to the states to individually decide about religious and other gatherings.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
What do you suppose, in any community, the results of polygamy might be? That is, assuming that males and females are born in approximately equal numbers?

Would it not be that many males would be "involuntarily celibate," there being no females left over for them when some men have married many?
Yes and I don't support polygamy personally. I believe it's wrong. However it's not my business what others do.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Yes and I don't support polygamy personally. I believe it's wrong. However it's not my business what others do.
No? So if you saw a man beating a child in the street, that's not your business? It's just "what others do?"

But you didn't answer the question. What happens to unnecessary sons in a polygamous society? There are no answers that are not cruel to those sons, you know. Here's a fact about FLDS: Many of these "Lost Boys", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the sect, and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism) - Wikipedia

Not your business? Maybe it should be.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
No? So if you saw a man beating a child in the street, that's not your business? It's just "what others do?"

But you didn't answer the question. What happens to unnecessary sons in a polygamous society? There are no answers that are not cruel to those sons, you know. Here's a fact about FLDS: Many of these "Lost Boys", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the sect, and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism) - Wikipedia

Not your business? Maybe it should be.
That is disgusting.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The Constitution prevents the government from: forcing people to follow a religion or prohibiting them from practicing a religion or prohibiting people from peaceably assembling.
I wouldn't have much trouble with religious folks exercising their right to gather. Or people who insist on the right to gather at cinemas or music concerts or whatever.

As long as they don't go to stores or doctor offices or any of the places the rest of us go to.
Go infect your own family and friends, but not mine. I've got an elderly relative I take care of, who is totally in the "high risk" category. My mom is also in that category. Do whatever you want, but stay away from the rest of us!

If you can't do that( go to movies, church, concerts) and then stay the hell away from me and mine, then you don't have a right to gather.
Tom
 
Top