5 ms·
Historically, The states power was plenary is because everyone had first hand observational knowledge of the pandemic; they lost friends, family, acquantences,
by TheBobinator 6y ago
Historically, The states power was plenary is because everyone had first hand observational knowledge of the pandemic; they lost friends, family, acquantences, and so forth. Nobody on the street knew how bad it was at the time until statisticians had time to study records from the time, which to be frank, took decades.
We're becoming a technological society; most people recieved life-saving information directly from infectious disease experts giving interviews on CNN, Fox, CNBC, and so forth. If you are successful in stopping a pandemic, most people won't know you stopped it, and furthermore, once you have it contained, you have to deal with keeping it contained because unlike spanish flu, you have no herd immunity.
I think just on first hand knowledge alone, most people don't believe there's been a pandemic and they'd be correct in that viewpoint; something else, something very novel, and probably very good for us all, has gone on.
What I find particularily onerous about this ruling is the Supreme Court is using the term "church" in their writing; given, it's a church that's filing the lawsuit, however, they are not using language such as "places of worship" or "Religious instutitions". Do these rules apply to Synagoges and Mosque's? It gives the feeling that if we were dealing with those institutions, an entirely different discussion would be had and that's dangerous given groups of armed protesters are willing to peacefully walk in and occupy government buildings in a show of force.
- thephyber 6y ago> they are not using language such as "places of worship" or "Religious instutitions" You mean like if the USA would change "In God we Trust" to "In God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, et al we Trust"? There has long been a bias in the USA towards the predominant religious institution away from the minority ones.
- nsajko 6y ago> bias in the USA towards the predominant religious institution away from the minority ones Are you sure that is the case at the federal level? Some states or governors may sometimes do something like you suggest, but I think at least the Supreme Court is more reasonable. Some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... > In God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, et al we Trust Some comments, a bit off topic: * "In God We Trust" only became the US motto in 1956, presumably because of the "Red Scare" * Allah = Christian God = Yahweh, so your proposed motto sounds stupid. (Though I think I read somewhere of a theory that the Torah is actually an aggregate work, so that different parts actually speak about different gods, or something like that...)
- koenigdavidmj 6y ago> Allah = Christian God = Yahweh There is no consensus on this, either among Muslims or Trinitarians.
- int_19h 6y agoThere's no consensus that what's actually worshipped is the same God. But as far as meaning of words go, Allah literally means The God, and Arab Christians use it to refer to the Christian god. There's also no ambiguity that Yahweh specifically is "the god" for both Christians and Muslims.
- banads 6y agoDon't the all believe in the God of Abraham?
- mr_spothawk 6y ago> * "In God We Trust" only became the US motto in 1956, presumably because of the "Red Scare" stay home, stay safe. the mask is for their protection, put it on while you're working
- nsajko 6y ago> ... the Supreme Court is using the term "church" in their writing ... This seems to be an established practice, though, as in "wall of separation between church and state", or "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.". I believe the "church" is used independently from religion, but I hope somebody can confirm that...