Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hestia11

Kansas GOP risks lives

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article241868731.html

 

Shocking. Truly shocking. Gov. Kelly didn’t ban services. She banned more than ten people gathering which is what hs happened everywhere. Kansans deserve their governor, not their legislature that needlessly put people at risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article241868731.html

 

Shocking. Truly shocking. Gov. Kelly didn’t ban services. She banned more than ten people gathering which is what hs happened everywhere. Kansans deserve their governor, not their legislature that needlessly put people at risk. 

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to limit church services.  The individuals congregations can make their own decisions on how to proceed. This doesn't risk lives (as no one has to attend). It simply preserves proper freedom of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to limit church services.  The individuals congregations can make their own decisions on how to proceed. This doesn't risk lives (as no one has to attend). It simply preserves proper freedom of religion.

It literally does. It’s a blanket measure to everyone. It’s a public health risk. Other states have done the same and there’s been 0 blowback. It’s limiting how many people, not the fact that they can worship. (Which can be done anywhere)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

It literally does. It’s a blanket measure to everyone. It’s a public health risk. Other states have done the same and there’s been 0 blowback. It’s limiting how many people, not the fact that they can worship. (Which can be done anywhere)

There is a reason that most states (including more democratic ones) include a religious exemption.  It's because the state does not have the power to step in an interfere with their services due to religious freedom.  There have been cases where a local ban has been put in effect and has been ignored within those jurisdiction.  The probable reason that it isn't being enforced is because it would not stand up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

There is a reason that most states (including more democratic ones) include a religious exemption.  It's because the state does not have the power to step in an interfere with their services due to religious freedom.  There have been cases where a local ban has been put in effect and has been ignored within those jurisdiction.  The probable reason that it isn't being enforced is because it would not stand up in court.

They do have power when it comes to welfare and protection of their people, which is part of what's going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

They do have power when it comes to welfare and protection of their people, which is part of what's going on here.

No it does not.  Religious freedom doesn't just disappear because people are getting sick.  Members of government can provide recommendations for going forward (which is what most states are doing), but they do not have the authority to forcefully close churches and restrict services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

No it does not.  Religious freedom doesn't just disappear because people are getting sick.  Members of government can provide recommendations for going forward (which is what most states are doing), but they do not have the authority to forcefully close churches and restrict services.

https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these-churches-refuse-to-close-over-covid-19-does-the-constitution-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/3/21/21185541/coronavirus-utah-covid-19-churches-religious-freedom-synagogues-mosques-police-law

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/govt-closure-of-churches-during-covid-19-is-legal-if-temporary-group-says.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/can-the-government-close-churches-in-response-to-an-epidemic

As you can see, even by religious rights groups it is fine as long as it is applied evenly among all sectors, which is happening. Particularly state and local governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing

 

Ecclesiastes 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/can-the-government-close-churches-in-response-to-an-epidemic

As you can see, even by religious rights groups it is fine as long as it is applied evenly among all sectors, which is happening. Particularly state and local governments.

Congratulations on finding a few articles that support your opinion.  Just because groups are ok with it does not make it valid.

Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't include a clause that says that it doesn't apply if people are getting sick.  Constitutional protections mean nothing if they do not also apply in times of crisis, and forcefully closing churches is definitely an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

 

Also, if a state uses law enforcement to impose such requirements, they will encite resentment among the population.  That's a good way to make people stop listening to your recommendations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Congratulations on finding a few articles that support your opinion.  Just because groups are ok with it does not make it valid.

Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't include a clause that says that it doesn't apply if people are getting sick.  Constitutional protections mean nothing if they do not also apply in times of crisis, and forcefully closing churches is definitely an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

 

Also, if a state uses law enforcement to impose such requirements, they will encite resentment among the population.  That's a good way to make people stop listening to your recommendations.

Dude. It literally says that it has precedent cases that would hold up it's case. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Congratulations on finding a few articles that support your opinion.  Just because groups are ok with it does not make it valid.

Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't include a clause that says that it doesn't apply if people are getting sick.  Constitutional protections mean nothing if they do not also apply in times of crisis, and forcefully closing churches is definitely an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

 

Also, if a state uses law enforcement to impose such requirements, they will encite resentment among the population.  That's a good way to make people stop listening to your recommendations.

I mentioned in response to another thread of yours on these type of topic (one you didn't respond to) that, at the time of the Founding Fathers, highly contagious outbreaks were not understood medically in how they spread and how to treat them. They only "plague" management precedent from Europe to fall back on, which was absolutely horrid in nature ("bring out ya dead!"). The reasons keep on stacking up as to why the Constitution is NOT timeless and evergreen in applicability in as you and other Constitutional originalists claim, and the Founding Father did NOT have a transcendent level of statesmanship above all others. They were ordinary men, men of their time, and men with the same flaws and oversights as any other human being. The U.S. REALLY needs a whole new Constitution entirely to deal with govern with how nations are governed in the modern day and age. This is not really as frightening as it's detractor make it out to be - most other sovereign nation, and over half of the actual U.S. States, have had several Constitutions in their political existences. But the idea of Constitutional originalists to just retract governance BACK to purer Constitutional limits would be catastrophic, and make the nation ungovernable, probably leading to a complete political and infrastructure - certainly economic as collateral damage, as is always the case these days - collapse. I have no idea how you just can't see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is not being targeted when the exact same rules apply to everybody.

And yes, it does put more people at risk.  If you choose to risk your own life by going to church, the risk is not that you will drop dead when you walk in the doors.  The risk is that you will become an asymptomatic carrier, infecting your family and the people at the grocery store and at work and wherever else you go.  You’re not just risking your own life, you are risking the lives of both your loved ones and complete strangers.

People just have to stop being stupid for a while.  I know, it sucks.  I promise everyone will eventually allowed to be stupid again soon enough.  We’re only asking for people to stop being stupid for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 3:00 PM, jvikings1 said:

It would be blatantly unconstitutional to limit church services.  The individuals congregations can make their own decisions on how to proceed. This doesn't risk lives (as no one has to attend). It simply preserves proper freedom of religion.

Freedom of Religion does NOT guarantee consistent, reliable, and unimpeded availability of access to a place of worship of your religion regularly. Such a thing would be LUDICROUS to declare. How would that apply for government (including military) employees who are relocated for work, corporate and NGO employees likewise relocated, on remote contract work, or on the road, in hospital, prison, or housebound for reasons other then the current issue, during floods, tornados, hurricanes, and outages where such access was just impossible, or indeed invoking on behalf of a member of a religious community, but who was banned from the premises of the place of worship for disruptive behaviour, theft, vandalism, etc. on the premises, but who wasn't excommunicated or shunned formally from the community. Freedom of Religion does not grant guaranteed consistent, reliable, and unimpeded availability of access to a place of worship of your religion regularly, like you seem to imply in the post above, and the logistical and pragmatic elements I've already listed stack up pretty high against it, as is. Why should this crisis magically be considered different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...