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

[Maximus1]

No. That is the clearest part of Amendment 1

 

[ThinkingSapien]

while supporting Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. draconian crackdowns against free speech because they are non-government.

I don’t think I’ve done something that amounts to support. Stating that “Facebook is not the government” isn’t a statement of support. It’s a statement of fact. It’s a fact that is repeatedly reasserted in court rulings.

 

[Nepperhan]

The states can make laws about the way people practice religion. This has been supported in the court’s from the bans against polygamy to the snake handlers to the chicken chokers.

Please don’t try to conflate this into any type of war against religion. A state can set standards as to buildings used for religious rites in order to protect the public. The same goes for limiting gatherings.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

How does banning people from sitting in their cars reduce anything except our grip on sanity?

These fools in power are lashing out in fear of viral spread and not using even the slightest common sense in their approach. This reminds me of the Walmart manager who disallowed the sale of baby car seats because of how he interpreted Governor Whitner’s EO. If he had any common sense, that would have never happened.

The ends never justify the means, and it doesn’t matter if you are trying to save lives. I cannot destroy abortion clinics nor can I hold women at gunpoint because it would save lives. Too much is occurring and being defended under the guise of “trying to protect overall public good” which is crap. You don’t get to throw that card out as your justification and then get carte blanche to do whatever you want.

Ironically, THESE sort of behaviors are actually dictatorial in nature, and are occurring under both republican and democrat officials, yet the focus on this board is those losing their mind over one man whose actual tactical policies are so far removed from day to day impacts on the ground in communities. But mayor’s fining people from drive up church services does have an impact. These people and their defenders have lost their minds, or have evil intentions; one of the two.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Once we can all agree on sensible, we are all set.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

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.

How does me being in my car and you in yours put yourself at risk? I hope you never drive during flu season on the road either.

Answer with an explanation rather than thinly-veiled loathing of religious folk, please.

The states can make laws about the way people practice religion. This has been supported in the court’s from the bans against polygamy to the snake handlers to the chicken chokers.

Please don’t try to conflate this into any type of war against religion. A state can set standards as to buildings used for religious rites in order to protect the public. The same goes for limiting gatherings.

The state can do a lot.

I am just disappointed to see a co called "Catholic forum defend their idiocy. Whether they can or cannot is a matter for the courts. Whether they should or shouldn’t is a matter of opinion, and one would think actual christians would generally share the same one in that regard.

Kind of like one would hope actual Christians would defend historical slavery laws because “hey, state’s rights, yo.” (I say this as a BIG states’ right apologist).

 

[Xystus]

And countered the viewd to Justice Thomas on this issue.

While Thomas is a wonderful jurist in my opinion, he is only human like the rest of us and subject to being wrong occasionally. Do you agree with him or do you think that just because it was Thomas that said something that i will automatically jump on board and run with that interpretation?

 

[dvdjs]

Do you agree with him or do you think that just because it was Thomas that said something that i will automatically jump on board and run with that interpretation?

Neither. My point, was just that the limitations imposed by the first Amendment on the States is not as obvious as might have been inferred from your post eitherin history on in the present.

 

[Abrosz]

How does me being in my car and you in yours put yourself at risk? I hope you never drive during flu season on the road either.

Answer with an explanation rather than thinly-veiled loathing of religious folk, please.

You misunderstood me. I have no problem with whatever form of services you attend. It is none of my concern. My actual words were: “Well, let people gather in their places of worship, and carry the consequences.” Clear enough for you? And I do not loathe religious people, I respect their freedom.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Thanks for clarifying. I do not see a health risk for drive-up worship either way, but appreciate you chiming in.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien.

Are you ready to support Attorney General William Barr here and now . . . . against local Governments cracking down on free speech (free assembly)?

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperhan . . . .

The states can make laws about the way people practice religion. This has been supported in the court’s from the bans against polygamy to the snake handlers to the chicken chokers.

This of course is a partial truth.

They cannot allow things for certain groups,
yet disallow these same things against Christians.

That was the whole point Barr made.

Nobody here is advocating snake handling. That was an irrelevant comment by you.

.

Nepperhan . . . .

Please don’t try to conflate this into any type of war against religion

These draconian measures aimed against religion,
especially against Christians
is part of the war against religion.

 

[JanR]

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

Since when are religious services “secular” activities?

One of the pastors who was arrested was fully complying with distancing regulations within his church.

What’s wrong with the drive-in method of accessing what we need, including religious services?

Some of these measures have been carried to draconian extremes. Reasonable restrictions and precautions are fine. But some of these extremes go way beyond what is necessary.

These excessive power grabs really are cause for concern, and I’m glad Attorney General Barr is taking them seriously.

 

[PaulinVA]

Since when are religious services “secular” activities?

Maybe I worded that clumsily. I was trying to convey that they should be treated like any other activity, that the fact it was a religious activity should cause a different set of criteria to be applied to it.

What’s wrong with the drive-in method of accessing what we need, including religious services?

I don’t see a problem with this.

 

[Nepperhan]

They cannot allow things for certain groups,
yet disallow these same things against Christians.

That was the whole point Barr made.

Not exactly. The discrimination Barr warned against was religious vs. non-religious. “Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” So he was talking about freedom of practice – not freedom to choose a religion. Consequently my comments were spot on. Things like zoning restrictions apply to all users, religious and non-religious.

And, as noted, the government can even restrict some religious practices. These ‘draconian measures’ are about public health, not holding down anyone’s religion. So everyone can takeoff that victim’s cloak.

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperham . . . .

So he was talking about freedom of practice – not freedom to choose a religion.

Nepperham, Nepperham. Has ANYONE here said or intimated this had to do with picking out a religion??!!

Did the cops go into the Baptist Church parking lot (or whatever) and tell them:

"Stick em up! You must become Lutheran!"

Why are you arguing these points that nobody is making??

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperham . . .

These ‘draconian measures’ are about public health, not holding down anyone’s religion.

No they are not.

Just like they are not in WalMart’s parking lot.
Or the stop light.
Or the hardware store parking lot.

Nobody is concerned about these people-in-automobile interactions. Nobody. (At least to the point of outlawing THOSE.)

 

[Nepperhan]

Why are you arguing these points that nobody is making??

Because you don’t seem to understand the difference. No governor is working against religion in general or Christianity in particular. So everyone should hang up that ‘war against Christians’ stuff. This is exactly like enforcing building standards. However, some pastors insist on being allowed to hold services in buildings which are leaning. All Barr said was to treat all gatherings alike. OK, I get that. Some folks feel that Christians are an oppressed majority in this country, always being set upon for their views. It ain’t necessarily so.

You know where Barr is wrong? There is very little law on discrimination against someone who holds religious views. Our Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion and our laws prevent discrimination based on a person’s religion. However, I have not heard of cases on discrimination against a person because he or she believes in religion (or God) in general. I wonder if the law covers that. If you think that religious people make too much noise with psalm singing, can a landlord refuse to rent on that basis? I wonder.

 

[Cathoholic]

Nepperhan . . .

So everyone should hang up that ‘war against Christians’ stuff.

Apart that your arguments here are rife with partial truths,
you don’t get to tell me or “everyone” what to do Nepperhan.

 

[Nepperhan]

Apart that your arguments here are rife with partial truths,
you don’t get to tell me or “everyone” what to do Nepperhan.

I do get to say what you ought to do, which is what I did.

You can flag that one for the moderators, too.