Attorney General Barr Warns Officials Targeting The Faithful, Backs Church Lawsuit

[Cathoholic]

Thank you William Barr and the Trump Administation!

APRIL 14TH, 2020

READ IT: Attorney General Barr Warns Officials Targeting The Faithful, Backs Church Lawsuit​

By Amanda PrestigiacomoDailyWire.com

On Tuesday, Attorney General Bill Barr issued a strong warning to political officials across the nation for targeting the faithful in the midst of social distancing and lockdown measures combating the China-originated novel coronavirus, or COVID-19.

Though he urged that social distancing measures should be followed, Barr emphasized that houses of worship cannot be targeted with different standards. While “the Constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances,” he said, even in these circumstances, religious discrimination is always prohibited.

“[E]ven in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers,” the AG continued, according to The Hill. “Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.”

Governors and mayors across the nation have raised eyebrows with their strict regulation of the faithful.

For example, mayors in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi banned even “drive-up” church services, where congregants remain in their vehicles, claiming that they somehow violate social distancing standards while maintaining that drive-through restaurants do not.

In another instance, far-left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he would permanently close houses of worship if they do not adhere to his lockdown measures… . . .

. . . “As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest,” the attorney general wrote.

“The United States Department of Justice will continue to ensure that religious freedom remains protected if any state or local government, in their response to COVID-19, singles out, targets, or discriminates against any house of worship for special restrictions,” he added.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-attorney-general-barr-warns-officials-targeting-the-faithful-backs-church-lawsuit

See also . . .

Helfenbein: Christians Must Stand Up Against the Assault on Religious Liberty

When civil authorities go beyond safety guidelines and overreach, Christians should be ready for a fight by whatever legal means necessary.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Cathoholic]

The DOJ Throws the Gauntlet Down to Wannabe Local Tyrants Suppressing People’s Rights​

Posted at 10:15 pm on April 14, 2020 by Bonchie RedState.com

This week, we’ve seen a culmination of various state and local officials playing petty dictator in response to the Wuhan virus. Whether it’s ticketing people for going to drive-in churches, which doesn’t spread the virus in the least, or banning parents from buying car seats, these politicians and police departments have decided they have the power to suspend the Constitution at their whim.

My colleague Nick Arama wrote extensively about what Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is doing. Be sure to check that out by clicking here. Just today, the Raleigh Police Department in North Carolina joined in on the stupidity. . . .

. . . This is long overdue, though I understand why the DOJ needed to wait for these people overstep before making this move. There’s no excuse to ban religious services where people are staying in their cars or telling people they can’t even go to another person’s house. I don’t care how bad this virus gets, there are lines which simply shouldn’t be crossed. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision to allow the full suspension of rights because some elected official declares a public health emergency.

While some say this is a temporary, necessary evil, I say that’s foolish. These precedents won’t be going away if we allow them to stand. The DOJ needs to come down hard on anyone violating the rights of American citizens. Gov. Whitmer is at the top of that list. Trading freedom for security is not a bargain Americans should ever be willing to make. There are ways to socially distance and mitigate the spread of the virus without taking a torch to our rights

The DOJ Throws the Gauntlet Down to Wannabe Local Tyrants Suppressing People's Rights

redstate.com

 

[Cathoholic]

MI Dem Gov Wins the Prize for Orwellian Overreach, Banning What Citizens Can Do During Pandemic​

Posted at 8:30 pm on April 11, 2020 by Nick Arama

MI Dem Gov Wins the Prize for Orwellian Overreach, Banning What Citizens Can Do During Pandemic

redstate.com

Whitmer of course is one of the ones who thought she should CONTROL what physicians prescribe then later backtracked. . .

MI Gov. Whitmer Warns Doctors Against Over-Prescribing Chloroquine

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is threatening doctors who over-prescribe chloroquine, a potentially effective coronavirus drug.

www.breitbart.com

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Asks Feds for Chloroquine After Reversing Crackdown

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has asked the government for anti-malaria medication that may help treat the coronavirus.

www.breitbart.com

She is just all around bad.

200,000 Michiganders Sign Petition to Oust Governor Whitmer

Michigan citizens have flooded a petition calling for the removal of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, accusing her of gross negligence.

www.breitbart.com

Michigan: Angry Residents to Swarm Capitol in 'Operation Gridlock'

Residents of Michigan, angry about what they see as overbearing executive orders by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, have a planned a massive protest around the state capitol on Wednesday. | Politics

www.breitbart.com

 

[Maximus1]

Mayor’s trying to save the lives of churchgoing people draw a statement? The measures are obviously temporary and intended to save lives.
3 of the 4 mayor’s mentioned are in the Bible belt.
The mayor’s have no reason to doubt their positions. Saving human life is always Christian.

 

[Cathoholic]

Maximus1 . . .

Mayor’s trying to save the lives of churchgoing people draw a statement? The measures are obviously temporary and intended to save lives.

Now you get to explain how keeping people from sitting in their cars “saves lives” at Church, but its OK at the hardware store. Or the grocery store. Or at press gatherings.

 

[Maximus1]

Ok
The policy is to limit to the greatest extent possible, exposure, or potential exposure.
It isn’t a commentary on hierarchy of importance, it is a practical idea intended to reduce risk.
See how easy that is

 

[PaulinVA]

I think religious services should be treated like any other secular activity.

Should a state/local government allow a drive-in book club? A drive-in college class with a teacher at a white board?

What’s the difference between a drive-in restaurant and a drive-in church service or drive-in class? Is it that the restaurant provides food, which is essential, and the other two are providing services that can be provided online and don’t require the physical drive-in presence?

Not sure where the first amendment applies here.

 

[Xystus]

Not sure where the first amendment applies here.

Probably the bolded part.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[dvdjs]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;

What law did Congress make?

 

[Xystus]

States and local govts cant do it either. I’m sure you will come back with some crazy response like " emergency orders are not laws" which is asinine. if you can be fined or jailed for violating an emergency order there really is no difference from a law.

 

[Maximus1]

Did Congress make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Did the government act in accordance with a power the Constitution does affirmatively give it to protect citizens wellbeing?
Is the prohibition, if any, narrowly tailored to carry out a substantial governmental interest?

 

[PaulinVA]

Probably the bolded part.

Yes, I can read. We know that sensible gun restrictions are possible that conform with the second amendment. Surely there are sensible restrictions during a pandemic that can conform to the first amendment.

 

[dvdjs]

States and local govts cant do it either.

The you might bolded something about incorporation, substantive due process, or privileges and immunities that support this idea post-bellum.

And countered the viewd to Justice Thomas on this issue.

Can North Carolina Declare an "Official" Religion?

The separation of church and state took a real beating last week

ideas.time.com

 

[Xystus]

Did Congress make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion?

see my post immediately above yours.

Did the government act in accordance with a power the Constitution does affirmatively give it to protect citizens wellbeing?

The AG DOJ seems to think maybe not.

Surely there are sensible restrictions during a pandemic that can conform to the first amendment.

Surely there are just as surely there are restrictions that violate it. The AG seems to be of the opinion that maybe there are some violations going on. lets investigate to find out.

 

[PaulinVA]

Surely there are just as surely there are restrictions that violate it. The AG seems to be of the opinion that maybe there are some violations going on. lets investigate to find out.

I always like it when two people here can come to agreement. I agree with you. Frankly, to prohibit a parking lot service with audio over the radio and windows rolled up but allow takeaway by drive in at the restaurant down the road seems like an unequal application of a regulation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Maximus1 . . .

Ok
The policy is to limit to the greatest extent possible, exposure, or potential exposure.
It isn’t a commentary on hierarchy of importance, it is a practical idea intended to reduce risk.
See how easy that is

No. I don’t see how easy it was.

These people are in separate cars and you explained nothing but your ipse dixit.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulInVA . . .

Not sure where the first amendment applies here.

Not sure where the public health issues applies here.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . . .

What law did Congress make?

Your going to chuck individual rights dvdjs because this was not an act of Congress?

OK. I’ll remember that principle when you bring up “protections” that are not Constitutionally protected. Like your constant support for illegal immigration with “sanctuary cities”.

I’ll also tell Attorney General William Barr the dvdjs semantics theory that thinks . . .
if the act of Government against its citizens
is not originally an act of Congress stifling free speech,
there is no Governmental protected free speech for US citizens
the next time he and I sit down for a cup of coffee together.

I’ll remind him again that dvdjs says so.

@ThinkingSapien. You have been reminding everyone for years how if speech squelches eminate from Government how illegal they are
while supporting Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. draconian crackdowns against free speech because they are non-government.

I said I was worried that from what I observed, that you might not show up for the “fight” (to help defend liberty if Government pulled this stunt).

Well TS. Now is your chance.

Covfefe

 

[Abrosz]

Not sure where the public health issues applies here.

Well, let people gather in their places of worship, and carry the consequences. Maybe they wish to qualify for a “Darwin award”. Of course they also place other people at risk… which is regrettable.

 

[Cathoholic]

Abrosz . . . .

Well, let people gather in their places of worship, and carry the consequences. Maybe they wish to qualify for a “Darwin award”.

Instead of calling Christians names (“Darwin award” recipients)
why not explain how if their automobiles are approriately segregated (social distancing)
and the worshippers of Jesus remain in them,
please explain the mechanisms of transmission,
to the point where the healthcare system is overwhelmed and “the curve” would not be “flattened”.

This should be an interesting explanation.