It's No Mistake That Our First Freedom Is Religion
By: Andrew Napolitano
Freedom of religion and the free exercise there of are not conditional rights that some snobby secular progressive can sit on high and modify to their liking. It is in fact an inalienable first and foremost premiere right as a human being and as anAmerican citizen. Governors and mayors have been wrongly abusing believers during this pandemic.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
" But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. "
— Supreme Court of the United States, November 25, 2020
When teaching law students about the Bill of Rights, professors often ask on the first day of class which is the first freedom protected by the First Amendment.
The students invariably answer, "freedom of speech."
It is not.
If the Framers were trying to tell us which freedom is the first among equals, they did so by listing the religion clauses ahead of the freedom of speech.
The religion clauses prohibit the government from respecting the establishment of religion and from interfering with its free exercise.
This is not an academic issue. Recent events have demonstrated that the free exercise of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified.
Numerous state governors have targeted the free exercise of religion in their multifaceted assaults on personal liberty in the name of public safety. Last week, the Supreme Court put a stop to one of them.
Here is the backstory:
Andrew M. Cuomo is the governor of New York.
He has been foremost among his gubernatorial colleagues in his ubiquitous television explanations of his various executive orders restricting personal liberty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He even won an Emmy for his hundreds of television appearances during which he educated the viewing public on his understanding of the science behind the pandemic.
He attempted to educate the public, as well, on his understanding of the Constitution.
That understanding is wanting.
Cuomo established a color-coded system to indicate the severity of the COVID-19 infection rate by ZIP code.
Red is the most severe and calls for limiting worship to 10 people per indoor venue. Orange is the next level, and it limits worshippers to 25.
Since the governor did not deem the right to worship as "essential," even though he deemed campgrounds and bicycle, food and liquor shops to be essential, he imposed his 10- or 25-person limit on all houses of worship, irrespective of the size of the venue.
He imposed no numerical limitations on essential venues.
Thus, a small mom and pop liquor store could be packed to the gills with customers, but a 400-seat synagogue or a 1,200-seat cathedral would still be limited to 10 or 25 people.
This was such an interference with the free exercise of religion that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and three Jewish congregations in New York City collectively sued the governor in federal court in Brooklyn.
They lost.
Last week, the Supreme Court interceded in a splendid 5 to 4 decision that defended religious liberty in the face of government efforts to sweep it aside.
The court recognized that the right to worship is fundamental — and has been the law of the land for many generations.
Yet, its characterization as "fundamental" was a shot across the governor's bow because, whatever he considers the freedom to worship to be, he ordered that it was not essential.
The court held that by failing to characterize it as essential, while characterizing other choices as essential, Cuomo demonstrated a hostility to religion.
Stated differently, if having more than 10 or 25 people in a large synagogue or church is likely to harm public health, then why is having 500 people in a Walmart or folks packed like sardines in a liquor store not likely to impair public health?
Because the religion clauses are articulated in the First Amendment — and because the freedom to worship is a natural right — the government can only interfere with them by meeting a demanding jurisprudential test called strict scrutiny.
This mandates that the government must have a compelling state interest it is attempting to serve by the least-restrictive means.
It also means that a fundamental right cannot be targeted when other rights that may or may not be fundamental are left to individual choices.
The Supreme Court's ruling, which was released at 2:12 a.m., was a response to an emergency application. After the plaintiffs lost at the trial court, they asked the trial judge to enjoin the governor during the pendency of their appeal so their congregants could worship during the coming holidays.
The court declined.
Then the plaintiffs asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for a temporary injunction until that court could hear their appeal.
It declined.
Then the plaintiffs threw their Hail Mary pass and asked the Supreme Court to enjoin Cuomo during the pendency of their appeal.
That pass ended up being a touchdown with no time left on the clock.
The Supreme Court not only issued an injunction preventing the governor from limiting the number of worshippers at the religious venues that sued, but it did so in such sweeping, liberty-embracing language that will surely apply to all religious venues in the land.
Reading the court's decision, and particularly the thoughtful and brilliant concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch — who wrote that "government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis" — one can see that Cuomo lost this case because while he may understand the science, he does not understand the jurisprudence.
Freedom of religion is not the first freedom by mistake.
It was the judgment of the Framers that this freedom is as essential to human fulfillment as are any other free choices that free people make.
By failing to recognize that natural, historic and jurisprudential truism, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo doomed his executive order to the ash bin of history.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School, was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year. He is Fox News’ senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. He is the host of “FreedomWatch” on the Fox Business Network. Napolitano also lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime, and human freedom. He has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of five books on the U.S. Constitution. Read Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's Reports — More Here .
Tags
Who is online
144 visitors
This is not an academic issue. Recent events have demonstrated that the free exercise of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified.
Numerous state governors have targeted the free exercise of religion in their multifaceted assaults on personal liberty in the name of public safety. Last week, the Supreme Court put a stop to one of them.
Here is the backstory:
Andrew M. Cuomo is the governor of New York.
He has been foremost among his gubernatorial colleagues in his ubiquitous television explanations of his various executive orders restricting personal liberty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
He even won an Emmy for his hundreds of television appearances during which he educated the viewing public on his understanding of the science behind the pandemic.
He attempted to educate the public, as well, on his understanding of the Constitution.
That understanding is wanting.
Cuomo established a color-coded system to indicate the severity of the COVID-19 infection rate by ZIP code.
Red is the most severe and calls for limiting worship to 10 people per indoor venue. Orange is the next level, and it limits worshippers to 25.
Since the governor did not deem the right to worship as "essential," even though he deemed campgrounds and bicycle, food and liquor shops to be essential, he imposed his 10- or 25-person limit on all houses of worship, irrespective of the size of the venue.
He imposed no numerical limitations on essential venues.
Thus, a small mom and pop liquor store could be packed to the gills with customers, but a 400-seat synagogue or a 1,200-seat cathedral would still be limited to 10 or 25 people.
This was such an interference with the free exercise of religion that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and three Jewish congregations in New York City collectively sued the governor in federal court in Brooklyn.
They lost.
Last week, the Supreme Court interceded in a splendid 5 to 4 decision that defended religious liberty in the face of government efforts to sweep it aside.
The court recognized that the right to worship is fundamental — and has been the law of the land for many generations.
Yet, its characterization as "fundamental" was a shot across the governor's bow because, whatever he considers the freedom to worship to be, he ordered that it was not essential.
The court held that by failing to characterize it as essential, while characterizing other choices as essential, Cuomo demonstrated a hostility to religion.
Stated differently, if having more than 10 or 25 people in a large synagogue or church is likely to harm public health, then why is having 500 people in a Walmart or folks packed like sardines in a liquor store not likely to impair public health?
Because the religion clauses are articulated in the First Amendment — and because the freedom to worship is a natural right — the government can only interfere with them by meeting a demanding jurisprudential test called strict scrutiny.
This mandates that the government must have a compelling state interest it is attempting to serve by the least-restrictive means.
It also means that a fundamental right cannot be targeted when other rights that may or may not be fundamental are left to individual choices.
https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/11369/its-no-mistake-that-our-first-freedom-is-religion
This is so right on here...
https://www.instagram.com/p/CIW--ELL3n2/?igshid=vw38buu0vke2
All religions are equal in the USA. As to the SCOTUS ruling, ACB needs to be removed ASAP for lying. She clearly said that her personal religious views would never influence her professional decisions yet, she did exactly that.
Freedom of religion is not unlimited. It cannot supersede an individuals civil rights. Kim Davis is a perfect example of that.
is that going to be the Democrats strategy now?
impeach and remove Justices that they d6 like?
lol
This is a good one!....
Emperor Cuomo – A.F. Branco Cartoon
Though Cuomo policies cost the lives of thousands of elderly Holywood and the left hold him in high regard. Cartoon…
[DELETED]
I’d wish them luck getting 67 senators to convict and remove here but we all know that neither would ever happen in her case.
No one ever said anything about all religions being anything but equal here. That’s not at issue here. Religious liberty is the ultimate unlimited individual right. No one can be coerced into an act that violates their beliefs. It’s the first freedom upon which all others are built. ACB followed the founders original intent perfectly.
The bible promotes slavery. Do you feel religious people should be able to own slaves?
Baker in Colorado felt that his religious beliefs allowed his ability to discriminate (not be coerced) against a gay couple wanting a case for their wedding. According to the Bible (New Testament), divorce is a bigger sin. How many cakes has this "true believer" made for divorced people getting married again?
Shouldn't separation of church and state mean that churches be treated like any other business? Doesn't promoting a religion to have rights that nothing, or no one, else has exemplify a 1st Amendment violation?
Religion was asking to have the same indoor and outdoor assembly rights and same numbers as secular events. And to be considered essential as they are per 1st amendment
Churches should be held to the exact same criteria as other public venues with similar activity and proximity. But when government officials fail to be specific enough to cover all the conditions people could complain about, that does not mean that religion is being persecuted. In the USA, religious organizations are granted so much slack, they have no grounds on which to whine about persecution.
Government exists to uphold existing God given rights. It’s not here to constrict the rights of people to be able to follow the religion or none at all each individual chooses. The right to believe and to act on those beliefs in our daily lives is not something for government to give nor take.
Our government has more to do than keep people from behaving foolishly. What about providing for our defense, promoting our welfare and insuring the blessing of liberty?
It isn't all just about you and your...feelings!
Man, where does one start given that? One might argue that the government of a theocracy exists to uphold rights per the god in question. But in the USA, our government exists (in theory that is) to enable a civil society. And that expressly means not following any particular religious view of rights.
Correct. But I have never suggested otherwise so why even make that statement?
Read better.
Again, the Bible promotes slavery. Is it your belief that the government should allow slavery? Pedophilia? Murder? Only people who have never read the Bible believe it is nothing but flowers and happy thoughts.
I doubt that your question will be processed. It likely will be rejected without an instant of consideration. Cognitive dissonance disabled by always holding that the Bible is true and all contradictions are simply the mistakes of inferior human brains.
Since God created us all equal in Hid sight and is the source of all the inalienable rights the founders said He gave us, government properly exists to protect rather than to encroach upon those rights.
That's nice. Prove it!
No one's rights have been taken away.
Wow Maga. Once again, the bible allows people to own slaves.
DO YOU FEEL THAT SLAVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS ALLOWED???
You keep ignoring that question. I understand why you are so AFRAID to answer it, but it needs to be addressed since you believe government needs to uphold all rights granted by the bible.
A few other things the bible condones (short list):
Bigamy
Rape
Incest
Stoning people (including your own children)
Genocide
Always. For years now.
Most real Christians would at least try to justify their beliefs.
What is most interesting to me is when an individual repeatedly (for years) makes bold claims that he always fails to justify. That suggests belief that is not even understood. Just belief because some human authority says so rather than an informed, considered conclusion.
Or a belief that is paid for, and not truly believed.
Just belief because some human authority says so rather than an informed, considered conclusion.
Especially when believing, based purely on your being told to believe, is part of that belief system. Or more simply, when a belief system makes questioning a crime.
It's the trifecta of intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and delusion. The perfect storm of willful ignorance.
Seems like someone is conflating freedom of religion with freedom of public assembly.
Public assembly is a freedom but government can (and does and should) impose restrictions on same based on mitigating factors. Like, for example, a pandemic.
The constitution and first amendment don’t take a hiatus during a pandemic or other declared disaster or emergency. A pandemic is not an excuse for secular bigots in government to restrain the freedom of believers or exact revenge for some self perceived slight or personal issue.
The constitution is not being violated when a government authority limits public assembly for public health reasons.
These conspiracy theories continue to be ridiculous. But, then again, anyone who thinks Biden stole the election has largely destroyed their credibility anyway.
Public health and well being seems more important than your personal religious sensibilities.
It is when as the court stated the government sets different standards for religious and secular assemblies that are a demonstration of overt hostility to religion.
It is foolish to think Biden stole the election and it is foolish to think that religions are being attacked by the government. Religious organizations are treated as very special cases in the USA. Indeed, the lack of oversight and freedom is so great that scam artists routinely declare themselves religious organizations to engage in their cons.
Whining of religious persecution in the USA is beyond foolish. Especially for Christians.
Facts help people avoid foolish ideas.
Only it’s not about my sensibilities. It’s about our premier constitutional right. These mayors and governors erred greatly when they set inferior differential standards for religious events compared to any other secular assembly elsewhere and worst of all according to the constitution and the Supreme Court which rectified this, declared religion to be non essential when in reality it is a or the most essential for our well being.
That’s why the Supreme Court ruling for New York was a fact based ruling.
A Christian in the USA complaining about religious persecution is like a billionaire complaining about paying taxes.
I hardly doubt religion is more essential than ones health. It's certainly not more important than mine. And you don't have the right to jeopardize other peoples health either!
Exactly. No one is stopping people from their beliefs. People have prayed and practiced their religions long before a building to do it in existed. Jesus never used a church. He spread the word. Now what is getting spread with people crammed into churches like sardines is a deadly virus.
Then limit all secular gatherings of any kind to the same standards as set for religious gatherings indoors and outdoors or let religious gatherings have the exact same assembly rules as the secular gatherings do.
He didn't use Christian church buildings because they didn't exist yet. However he did preach in the temple, and that house of God was central to their religious community. It is more important to understand that church is not just a building; it's a community, and it is an important component of religious practice to meet in groups. Jesus called people to come together.
Tacos,
In Judaism, you don't need a Syngagoge to pray, so the fact that Jesus used it was to make a point to the Jewish community. His sermons given outside were equally worthy.
Of course. I don't think I suggested they weren't. I was responding to the apparent contention that religious people don't have a religious need to meet as a group; that it's not really part of religious exercise or belief; and we should just get over it and worship by ourselves individually in isolation. My church meets outside (and online), but we meet - for multiple reasons, some of which are found in scripture as well as tradition.
You make great points. Well said.
Restrictions on such freedoms must overcome strict scrutiny, and these clearly did not.
The seeder, as always, is arguing that this is religious persecution. The failure of select authorities to produce perfect restrictions capable of overcoming strict scrutiny (I think that is impossible by the way) does not mean religious persecution.
Rather, it means blunt force instruments rather than surgical precision.
In a pandemic situation not everyone is going to be happy. Christians crying persecution in the USA in not impressive; especially since many others in this situation suffer far worse than inconvenience due to restrictions (e.g. loss of their businesses).
Perfection is not required. The regulation must be narrowly focused and employ the least restrictive means.
It is supposed to be difficult. Very difficult. When strict scrutiny is called for, the government usually loses - that's by design.
Neither are people of color who cry "racism" all the time, or women who see "sexism" everywhere, but these things exist all the same. Is it the worst possible example of it? Of course not, but it's still real.
Justice doesn't shut down just because you can find or imagine someone who has it worse.
And doing that to satisfy the scrutiny of everyone is likely impossible. I would prefer the restrictions be custom fit too. But the mere fact that they are not does not mean religious persecution.
There are all sorts of bogus complaints. Let's just stick with the one at hand: cries of religious persecution.
But the whining about religious persecution is placed in context by my noting how these restrictions ALSO hurt others far worse.
With all the freedoms offered to religious organization in the USA, Christians in this nation complaining about religious persecution are like billionaires complaining of paying taxes.
I doubt you can measure whether or not someone is hurt "worse."
In any event, the case deals with the parties and facts at bar. There is no justice is deciding the matter based on whether or not someone else is hurt worse. If someone else is being hurt, and such hurt violates a constitutional right, they are free to seek redress in the courts. That is its own conversation. Confirming constitutional rights in this case is justified on its merit, and does nothing to make anything worse for others.
Sure I can, in the example given:
The business owner experiences a far greater pain.
That was never my point. My point is that crying religious persecution because regulations have not been well conceived for churches is conspiracy theory in a nation where religious organizations are traditionally granted all sorts of exceptions. Like billionaires whining about being taxed.
In your opinion. Some would place the health of the soul or the mind above that of a business. There is no objective way to measure the comparative harm. And in any event, it’s not relevant to whether one party or the other has the right to a remedy in court.
That is simply not relevant to justice under the law. A right exists. It was infringed in violation of the law. You don’t get to deny justice to people based on the assertion that they generally have things pretty good otherwise. We might just as well deny freedom to African American slaves because they lived in better homes or ate better food than they would have in Africa.
Furthermore, you say religions have it good, so they should put up with this particular restriction. Tomorrow it will be some other restriction. Next week another one. And our rights gradually slip away because each one was just a little inconvenience compared to the situation some place else.
I’ll tell you something about that. It’s only a little thing when it doesn’t affect you personally. That’s true for so many things.
Not in yours? Really?
You do not think people are able to worship without going to church? The churchgoers will be inconvenienced for a short period of time. The business owners have lost their businesses. For many (smaller owners) that typically means bankruptcy or at least near financial ruin.
And nowhere have I suggested that. Tacos! stick with me here. I have always (including here) held the position that churches should be subject to the same principles of safety as all others and that necessarily means considering their venues and floor plans. Specifically, if a church can maintain a 6' social distance and will enforce precautions such as masks, ventilation and cleanliness then they should be able to operate just as a similar public venue which involves a lot of people who are raising their voices in an enclosed area (e.g. a bar).
Nowhere have I argued that churches should be treated unfairly. What I have stated is that the blunt force rules which have affected churches are not a conspiracy against religious organizations ... an attempt to take away religious freedom. And I have punctuated that with the observation that in the USA religious organizations enjoy an exceptional freedom — especially if Christian.
You are veering away from what I have stated and the points I have made into claims I have not made and positions that I do not hold. I hope that I have made that clear in this post.
It's not my place to tell other people what should be important to them in their lives. I am a religious person, but I don't agree with a lot of the priorities other religious people have. That doesn't mean I think it's ok to dismiss their beliefs. I defend their right to beliefs I disagree with.
Never said that. But again, what you or I think people need to worship isn't relevant.
It's much more than an inconvenience for some people. For some people, it's everything.
As I have said, "other people have it bad, too" is not a relevant argument. By the way, many business owners are going to court, too.
You keep bringing up how other people are suffering in different situations. Therefore, it's logical to assume you think it's an important metric. If you don't then you should stop bringing it up. It makes no sense.
The fact is our society, our government, and our legal system are rooted in the concept that certain rights are more deserving of extreme protections than others. Is that fair? Maybe not, but it's our system.
And I didn't say you did.
If churches are being limited to 10 or 25 people regardless of building capacity (which appears to have been the case), when others are not, then they are being treated unfairly.
Whether a conspiracy exists or not is not something I have claimed, nor is it legally relevant in this case. You seem to be making the presumption that when religious groups go to court to defend their rights, they are engaging in irrational conspiracy mongering. That is simply not the case here. It could be in some cases, but I see no evidence of that here.
Government regulations that infringe on the free exercise of religion might be intentionally anti-religion, but they need not be to be unconstitutional. Sometimes anti-religious bias may simply take the form of not prioritizing the protection of religion as the Constitution demands. Or it may be a completely benign oversight. It doesn't matter in this case.
The religious plaintiffs have a right to seek protection in the courts just like anyone else. I don't think they deserve to be demonized as conspiracy nuts because they do so.
We are not talking about dismissing beliefs. This is about being inconvenienced regarding attending church services versus going out of business.
Likely so. They should not be treated unfairly. Not the point. Never was.
Well that is what I have been talking about.
Nope. I responded to this from the seeder:
The seeder holds the position that the restrictions on churches is part of a power play using the pandemic as an excuse.
Great post on all the points you made! 👍👏
“Likely so. They should not be treated unfairly. Not the point. Never was.”
Never was? Really? It was the whole point of the case the Supreme Court finally ruled in our favor on on Nov. 25.
The same position as the libertarian author of the seeded article takes...
Yes, MAGA, never was. If you had read what I have written, I have never made the point that houses of worship should be treated unfairly. In fact, I have always argued the opposite (well beyond this article). In fact, I have stated same directly to you several times.
So, yeah, really.
My point in this context is that the mere fact that regulations were too coarse and did not appropriately consider the special venue and activities of the various churches, synagogues, etc. does not mean that government officials are making a power play on same using the pandemic as an excuse.
I have argued against your conspiracy theory, not for treating houses of worship unfairly.
See? Read rather than presume or invent.
Of course, parroting.
No surprise there.
I don't know what you think you are talking about, but when you characterize the restriction on a sincerely held religious belief as
Then you are dismissing it, whether you like me calling it that or not.
You keep trying to interject this comparison. I keep trying to remind you that this comparison was not the case before the court and is not legally relevant in the case. I'll say it for one last time: it's irrelevant.
Again, I don't know why you keep saying this. In court, it was the point.
Honestly, it's hard for me to believe this case was even controversial. I think you have to have some level of anti-religious bias to just assume with little or no evidence that the restrictions on these churches were either fair, or were a scientifically reasonable response to the pandemic.
This is not to say there is no risk in an indoor church service. There clearly is. But if Walmart can function at 50% of the building's capacity, surely churches can have a similar restriction instead of limiting it to 10 or 25 people. Arbitrary and extreme regulations only feed into the distrust and resentment so many have for government right now.
Having thoroughly and repeatedly explained my position, I am not inclined to do so yet again. Clearly you refuse to acknowledge it.
You want to focus on points that are not in contention. If we agree on something (and always have) there is no point to pretend as though we do not.
But it was not the point I made. Hello? You do not have the luxury to change my point for your own convenience. If you do not wish to discuss / debate the point I made that is fine with me. But trying to focus on a point I have not made as if I had made it is not okay.
We can debate the points of disagreement. But there is really no point in your making statements that I have never disagreed with and present them as if I had disagreed. Right? Pointless and silly is it not?
So, just to be clear, I have always (well before this seed) maintained that it is not right to treat houses of worship unfairly — to have them subjected to rules that are in principle not the same rules as others are subjected to.
Do you understand that the above ⇡ is quite different from my argument that simply because the rules were coarsely applied and arguably inappropriate does not mean that government officials are using the pandemic as a power play against religious organizations.
⇡ My point. ⇣
Stated earlier in what seems to be clear language:
In the case of some democrat mayors and governors that is clearly the case. The Supreme Court has intervened on believers behalf against the mayor of NYC and governor of New York. Now they are making governor Newsom defend his anti religion bias.
Well I will leave Newsom in your and Tacos! hands. He is your problem.
Why should I restate something in my words that someone else already went over that I agree with and did it better than I could have being he’s a lawyer and retired Judge?
“But it was not the point I made. Hello?”
it was the point in court. It was the point of the seeds author, and it is our point. As you your point about the real point......
We simply defy him at every turn and live our lives. Now we finally get him in court where he will back down or face what De Blasio and Cuomo faced.
Parroting the words of others is pointless. When challenged the parrot runs away, unable to defend the words it parroted because it lacks the understanding of the author whose words it merely copied.
Good luck with your governor.
You do not understand the concept of threads yet?
There are points that are made in discussions that stem (spawn) from the topic. I made one of those.
In fact, my comment focused on your editorial comment about the seed.
Are replies to this ⇡ off topic? (Answer: no)
That and I would add intellectual cowardice too.
We care about the point of the article and that of the court, as to your point, not so much.
He literally is the symbol of his party.
Does not matter what you care about. This site allows us to comment on aspects of the topic and, certainly, on seeder editorials.
And also on seeder BS!
And notice the concerted effort here to talk about the point of the court and the article and not talk to your added point.
My point was in direct response to your editorial. If you cannot stand rebuttals for which you have no defense think more carefully about what you write.
I wrote an editorial? Where?
Your editorial comments. I quoted them already.
Here, MAGA, this is what you wrote:
These are comments in the body of the article which precede the content of the seed. These are editorial comments from you (the seeder).
....The dispute began in October, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-NY., issued an order to take "short-term aggressive measures" where coronavirus "spikes" occurred as a way to contain the virus. The order placed severe limits on church attendance regardless of size because of their "super-spreader potential."
Meanwhile many other business and activities were unimpaired.
Churches and synagogues offered to engage in mitigation techniques similar to those of businesses like Wal-Mart and Home Depot and the state of New York refused their offer.
Thus, the churches and synagogues affected had no choice but to seek relief in Court.
Losing in the District court and in the Court of Appeals, a last-ditch appeal was made to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.
The story gets interesting here.
Hours before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the state of New York attempted an end run. They abruptly announced that the churches and synagogues suing the state were no longer in "red" and "orange" zones.
The state of New York then argued the case was moot since the restrictions were no longer in place. This clever sleight of hand (which had been tried by New York in other cases before) apparently was clever enough.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling anyway.
Five justices led by Clarence Thomas, the most senior Justice, agreed that the First Amendment likely precludes New York’s mistreatment of places of worship.
The Chief Justice while willing to allow New York’s scheme to "moot the case" to succeed, admitted that the action also violated the Constitution....
Read Newsmax: High Court's Ringing Endorsement of Religious Freedom
My editorial does not in any way stray from the opinion of the seeded article or the Supreme Court as you can see also in my above post and says nothing about persecution.
Buy a vowel:
The Supreme Court clearly backs that comment up by striking down said wrong abuses in NYC and NY state. Soon Ca. Gov. Newscum will be hearing from them too.
The Court announced that "even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten."
As the Court explained: The applicants have made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions violate "the minimum requirement of neutrality."
Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the Constitution does not allow people of faith to be treated adversely, New York assumed that there was some kind of coronavirus exception or alternatively that it could act as if one existed and then rescind the restriction if the Supreme Court took the case.
However, the legal standard is that government action affecting people of faith must be "generally applicable or else must be 'narrowly tailored' to satisfy a "compelling" state interest.
And in a concurring opinion Justice Gorsuch provided further a ringing endorsement of religious liberty. He opens with: "Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis."
Gorsuch asks, " . . . according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
Read Newsmax: High Court's Ringing Endorsement of Religious Freedom
Now you are moving the goal posts and ignoring the fact that I am against unfair treatment of churches.
Buy another vowel.
Sure you say you are. You object more to me calling it abuse or persecution than you object to the actual acts in question.
So here is where we stand. You have tossed out several allegations/complaints and you have been proven wrong on each count.
Instead of just tossing out allegation after allegation I recommend thinking about what you write before you post it. Make sure you can defend your allegation before making it public.
It is so much easier to debate if you take a position that is correct or at least can be well defended.
I will not back down from stating that I believe what De Blasio and Cuomo did to Christians and observant Jews since the crisis began to the present has been abusive of believers. It was because of the persecution/abuse that the Supreme Court stepped in and called them out on it, making a point of doing so despite New York trying to make it moot. New York did that in a gun rights case too and tried to drop the law when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal from the appeals court that ruled in NY’s favor. They habitually abuse Christians and conservatives and then try to repeal to make it moot so a few months later they can revisit it and recycle through the courts. The supremes twice lately have decided to rule regardless of the legal maneuvers of de Blasio and Cuomo.
You are not even reading what I write so why reply? I have stated repeatedly that places of worship should be subjected to the same principles as every other venue.
I am not going to explain this to you again since nothing sinks in. Like I said, your governor is your problem. Good luck.
I’m just thankful to Trump for ACB!
" But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. "
— Supreme Court of the United States, November 25, 2020
When teaching law students about the Bill of Rights, professors often ask on the first day of class which is the first freedom protected by the First Amendment.
The students invariably answer, "freedom of speech."
It is not.
If the Framers were trying to tell us which freedom is the first among equals, they did so by listing the religion clauses ahead of the freedom of speech.
The religion clauses prohibit the government from respecting the establishment of religion and from interfering with its free exercise.
This is not an academic issue. Recent events have demonstrated that the free exercise of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified.
I can’t believe that so many secularists are trying to deny this most basic of premises regarding our founding and our constitution.
From what I have read, you are not actually reading what people are writing here. You have this view of persecution and that is what you perceive no matter what people write. It is your problem to deal with.
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to not be religious
Clearly that is true.