4 ms·
On the one hand: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. Through the 14th amendment
by tomohawk 7y ago
On the one hand:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
Through the 14th amendment, this also applies to the states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
On the other hand, it is not a suicide pact.
And yet, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a state will be able to defend a blanket prohibition against all religious gatherings of any kind. What if, for example, a church were to assemble and maintain social distancing?
And yet, on the other other hand, it seems like a really bad idea for a church to make a point of exercising their rights at this time.
I Cor 8:11
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoI feel like we have to let the churches do what they want here. They're being totally reckless and people are going to die because of it–but I think the implications of stopping them would be even worse long-term.
- jasonpeacock 7y agoWhat are the worse long-term implications than people dying?
- cameldrv 7y agoSuppose I have a religion where we perform a human sacrifice of a random passerby every year on Easter. Can the state stop this religious practice?
- dx87 7y agoYes, it's murder.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoIs it not also murder to host an event bringing together people who are likely carrying a highly infectitious deadly disease to sit indoors with other people who are likely to die from that disease?
- yters 7y agoWhy do you think that is equivalent?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- franga2000 7y agoThe right to not be treated worse than others does not give you the right to be treated better than them. If schools, conventions, concerts, etc. are prohibited, so should church gatherings. Freedom of religion (which is what the 14th amendment is basically about) is meant to prevent treating religious groups unfairly. Treating them the same as basically everyone else sounds pretty fair to me...
- tomohawk 7y agoThe 14th amendment is one of the anti slavery amendments. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv The free exercise clause is part of the 1st amendment, and means just what it says. The federal government may not infringe on the free exercise of religion. A concert may look like a religious gathering, but it is not. The legal barrier to prohibiting a religious gathering is far higher, and for good reason - given a simple perusal of history. The 14th amendment has been interpreted to incorporate the bill of rights (which includes the free exercise clause) into governing the powers of the states as well. This was not necessarily the case prior to the Civil War. It is true that gathering together is dangerous at this time. It is also true that it is dangerous to allow panicked officials to abridge our rights without due process.
- fennecfoxen 7y agoThe First Amendment can be abridged under the same conditions as the others: when it serves a compelling governmental interest. This is subject to the strict scrutiny which comes with abridging Constitutional rights; it must be done via the least restrictive means possible, through a rule narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. (In the case of the first amendment specifically, it must also be a viewpoint-neutral rule.) This is a high bar to clear. It's not clear that all lockdowns clear it. (It's also not clear that, should they fail to clear it, there will be any effective remedy in the courts, because of qualified immunity.)
- tomohawk 7y agoExactly right. A blanket abridgement probably isn't reasonable, especially when many businesses remain open with appropriate safeguards in place.
- Digory 7y agoIf you’re in the religious media silos, you’ve seen a steady stream of police chasing people out of church parking lots, trying to “gather” safely — listening to the preacher on low power FM, in separate cars with the windows up. Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations. If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.
- ceejayoz 7y agoYou die with no food. You do not die missing a Sunday service or a few.
- Digory 7y agoYou do not die from the virus by parking in a lot, all things being equal. And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs. If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.