Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

[The Barbarian]

The state's compelling interest does not override the Constitution (supremacy clause, article VI)

This was decided over 100 years ago.
In 1901, the city of Boston registered 1,596 confirmed cases of smallpox, a highly contagious, fever-inducing illness infamous for causing a severe rash on the face and arms that often left survivors scarred for life. In Boston alone, 270 people died from smallpox during the extended 1901 to 1903 outbreak. That’s why public health officials in Boston and neighboring Cambridge issued their compulsory vaccination orders, hoping to reach the 90 percent vaccination rate required for herd immunity.

Jacobson, who served as the pastor of a Swedish Lutheran church in Cambridge, had been vaccinated against smallpox in Sweden when he was 6 years old, an experience that he later said caused him “great and extreme suffering.” So when Dr. E. Edwin Spencer, chairman of the Cambridge Board of Health, knocked on the Jacobsons’ door on March 15, 1902, the pastor refused vaccination for himself and his son.
...
The Supreme Court rejected Jacobson’s argument and dealt the anti-vaccination movement a stinging loss. Writing for the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan acknowledged the fundamental importance of personal freedom, but also recognized that “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

When the Supreme Court Ruled a Vaccine Could Be Mandatory | HISTORY

A 1905 Supreme Court ruling backing a city-issued fine for refusing the smallpox vaccination provided a powerful and ...

www.history.com

 

[Merrill]

This was decided over 100 years ago.
In 1901, the city of Boston registered 1,596 confirmed cases of smallpox, a highly contagious, fever-inducing illness infamous for causing a severe rash on the face and arms that often left survivors scarred for life. In Boston alone, 270 people died from smallpox during the extended 1901 to 1903 outbreak. That’s why public health officials in Boston and neighboring Cambridge issued their compulsory vaccination orders, hoping to reach the 90 percent vaccination rate required for herd immunity.

Jacobson, who served as the pastor of a Swedish Lutheran church in Cambridge, had been vaccinated against smallpox in Sweden when he was 6 years old, an experience that he later said caused him “great and extreme suffering.” So when Dr. E. Edwin Spencer, chairman of the Cambridge Board of Health, knocked on the Jacobsons’ door on March 15, 1902, the pastor refused vaccination for himself and his son.
...
The Supreme Court rejected Jacobson’s argument and dealt the anti-vaccination movement a stinging loss. Writing for the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan acknowledged the fundamental importance of personal freedom, but also recognized that “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

When the Supreme Court Ruled a Vaccine Could Be Mandatory | HISTORY

A 1905 Supreme Court ruling backing a city-issued fine for refusing the smallpox vaccination provided a powerful and ...

www.history.com

That decision was not a religious issue, but deals more with the 14th Amendment

“No state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.”

Many lawyers feel that the Federal Government cannot enforce vaccinations, but it gets a little hazier on the state level. Vaccination can be required to obtain employment in certain fields, for instance, but a sweeping mandate is another matter.

Just because something can be done legally, and may have precedent, does not make it correct, or even Constitutional. There are lots of bad court decisions out there, and even shaky SCOTUS decisions --this is why decisions can be overturned, precedent changes, etc.

As Mishima remarks "anything becomes excusable from the standpoint of the result" --vaccinating the public against a terrible disease like Smallpox was an understandable goal, and the result was as expected. If thousands of people died from vaccine complications, it would be a different matter

 

[lifepsyop]

How would preventing kids from bullying other kids who might be gay or transgender or whatever, force you and me into any kind of "lawless revolution?"

It's interesting that you don't view widespread, state-sponsored celebrations of men becoming women and women becoming men as a form of lawlessness. This represents a fundamental disordering of the most basic elements of God's creation of humanity.

21st century Christians can no longer recognize natural law that was obvious to even the pagan world. This attitude explains a lot about where we are today.

Jesus saved His wrath for those who oppressed the least of us.

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

We're very different, because I view a billion dollar industry that markets transgender ideology to children as true oppression.

But hey, that's free-market principles and good old fashioned American liberty in action, I guess.

 

[The Barbarian]

That decision was not a religious issue, but deals more with the 14th Amendment

“No state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.”

Many lawyers feel that the Federal Government cannot enforce vaccinations, but it gets a little hazier on the state level.

I don't think they did. However the decision didn't limit the right of the state to mandate emergency vaccinations to state and local levels.

Just because something can be done legally, and may have precedent, does not make it correct, or even Constitutional.

The point is that it's now settled law. Which the SCOTUS could overturn, of course. But this is the law we have now.

As Mishima remarks "anything becomes excusable from the standpoint of the result"

The GOP mantra, it seems.

If thousands of people died from vaccine complications, it would be a different matter

Actually, they do.

The life-threatening complications of post-vaccinial encephalitis and vaccinia necrosum were at least 3 and 1 per million primary vaccinations, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of vaccinees with post-vaccinial encephalitis died and 15% with vaccinia necrosum died.

Risks of serious complications and death from smallpox vaccination: A systematic review of the United States experience, 1963–1968 - PMC

The United States (US) has re-instituted smallpox vaccinations to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus into the civilian population. In an outbreak, people of all ages will be vaccinated. To prepare for the impact of large-scale ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In contrast, the different statistical agencies have reported that to August 2021 (June 2021 in Northern Ireland) there were 4 deaths in England, 0 deaths in Wales, 4 deaths in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland. Of these, 4 in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland had the vaccine as the underlying cause of death. This meant that there were 9 deaths in the UK that involved the vaccine (meaning the vaccine contributed to the death), of which 5 had the vaccine as the underlying cause (meaning the vaccine initiated the chain of events directly leading to the death). For these deaths, there was evidence to suggest that the vaccine played a part in the chain of events that led to the death.

How many people have died as a result of a COVID-19 vaccine? | National Statistical

blog.ons.gov.uk

Last I checked about 52,000,000 people in the UK were vaccinated with COVID vaccine. So about less than one in a million, even if you include those for which the vaccine was only partially involved with a death.

 

[The Barbarian]

How would preventing kids from bullying other kids who might be gay or transgender or whatever, force you and me into any kind of "lawless revolution?

It's interesting that you don't view widespread, state-sponsored celebrations of men becoming women and women becoming men as a form of lawlessness.

"Widespread, state-sponsored" seems a bit hysterical, even by normal homophobe standards. And of course, it's not lawless, since there aren't laws against it. Well, maybe in some states where the hysteria reached epidemic proportions...

21st century Christians can no longer recognize natural law that was obvious to even the pagan world.

Actually, homosexuality in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was rather widespread and socially acceptable.

We're very different, because I view a billion dollar industry that markets transgender ideology to children as true oppression.

I stopped believing in boogeymen a long time ago. But I'm kind of old fashioned. As the famed Little Old Lady from Dubuque remarked, "Iowans don't much care what other people do, as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses."

But hey, that's free-market principles and good old fashioned American liberty in action, I guess.

Yep. God punishes sin and the state punishes criminals. A pretty good system, I think.

 

[lifepsyop]

"Widespread, state-sponsored" seems a bit hysterical, even by normal homophobe standards.

It's just simple observation. Why call it hysteria?

Interesting that you are reluctant to admit American regime-sponsorship of LGBT ideology when it's right before your eyes.

And of course, it's not lawless, since there aren't laws against it.

Lawfulness and Lawlessness is a little more than what a liberal court decides from year to year.

Actually, homosexuality in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was rather widespread and socially acceptable.

As were any number of perversions, prostitution, etc, yet pagans still had a fundamental respect of natural law and the roles of men and women, and it was understood that breaking from these hierarchies was against an established natural order. Even the practice of homosexuality was heavily restricted to certain circumstances.

Paul came along to Rome and said you have the right idea, you're reaching for God's order, but the law of God is now revealed through Christ. The unknown God is now known. (America, of course, has reverted back to the pluralistic Unknown God of ancient Rome)

I stopped believing in boogeymen a long time ago.

Except for 'homophobes', MAGA republicans, and Christian Nationalists, right? (Throw Russian boogeymen in there too, I'm assuming)

Yep. God punishes sin and the state punishes criminals. A pretty good system, I think.

Sure it is. I'm sure you'd have no problem strolling down one of America's low-income urban areas alone at night.

 

[Merrill]

I don't think they did. However the decision didn't limit the right of the state to mandate emergency vaccinations to state and local levels.


The point is that it's now settled law. Which the SCOTUS could overturn, of course. But this is the law we have now.


The GOP mantra, it seems.


Actually, they do.

The life-threatening complications of post-vaccinial encephalitis and vaccinia necrosum were at least 3 and 1 per million primary vaccinations, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of vaccinees with post-vaccinial encephalitis died and 15% with vaccinia necrosum died.

Risks of serious complications and death from smallpox vaccination: A systematic review of the United States experience, 1963–1968 - PMC

The United States (US) has re-instituted smallpox vaccinations to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus into the civilian population. In an outbreak, people of all ages will be vaccinated. To prepare for the impact of large-scale ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In contrast, the different statistical agencies have reported that to August 2021 (June 2021 in Northern Ireland) there were 4 deaths in England, 0 deaths in Wales, 4 deaths in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland. Of these, 4 in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland had the vaccine as the underlying cause of death. This meant that there were 9 deaths in the UK that involved the vaccine (meaning the vaccine contributed to the death), of which 5 had the vaccine as the underlying cause (meaning the vaccine initiated the chain of events directly leading to the death). For these deaths, there was evidence to suggest that the vaccine played a part in the chain of events that led to the death.

How many people have died as a result of a COVID-19 vaccine? | National Statistical

blog.ons.gov.uk

Last I checked about 52,000,000 people in the UK were vaccinated with COVID vaccine. So about less than one in a million, even if you include those for which the vaccine was only partially involved with a death.

"the decision didn't limit the right of the state to mandate emergency vaccinations to state and local levels"

I am not a lawyer, but there is a problem here: the Constitution is a Federal document, and according to Article VI, takes precedence over state law, "emergency" or otherwise. For a state of emergency to exist, in which the Constitution itself, and all the protections within, is suspended, it must be declared at a federal level, through the National Emergencies Act or similar method.

In other words, the Democratic Governor cannot mandate every citizen in his state get a new, experimental vaccine (after getting a big campaign contribution from a pharma company) after arbitrarily declaring an "emergency", without violating the 14th Amendment and other provisions in the Constitution.

Now a National Emergency was declared by Trump during the pandemic, so this gave the states some latitude with all of this, but the emergency powers he assumed were to gain additional funding for a response, and to waive laws surrounding tele-health. The justification for the emergency was NOT to enable states to shutter churches.

Now you may not think any of this is a problem, but you should. A GOP president, congress, and governors could easily abuse emergency powers in order to take away your rights.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am not a lawyer, but there is a problem here: the Constitution is a Federal document, and according to Article VI, takes precedence over state law, "emergency" or otherwise. For a state of emergency to exist, in which the Constitution itself, and all the protections within, is suspended,

There was no suspension of the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled that a vaccine mandate is constitutional.

So the argument fails from a false premise.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Widespread, state-sponsored" seems a bit hysterical, even by normal homophobe standards.

It's just simple observation.

Well, recognizing that all Americans have the same rights, or that Trump endorses LGBTs is not that same as "widespread, state-sponsored celebration."

And of course, it's not lawless, since there aren't laws against it.

Lawfulness and Lawlessness is a little more than what a liberal court decides from year to year.

If you think the SCOTUS is "liberal", that explains a lot of things.

(False assumption about ancient societies)

Actually, homosexuality in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was rather widespread and socially acceptable.

As were any number of perversions, prostitution, etc,

Our former president's legal troubles show that not very much has changed. I stopped believing in boogeymen a long time ago.

Except for 'homophobes'

Turns out, assaults on homosexuals is a continuing problem. But it's not the boogeyman doing it.

MAGA republicans

Many of them are decent Americans. You sure you want to toss them in that bucket?

Christian Nationalists

You think there aren't Christian nationalists in America?

3 Threats Christian Nationalism Poses to the United States

A national poll shows a majority of one political party favors declaring the U.S. a Christian nation

time.com

Wake up. "Christian nationalism" is an oxymoron, but there's a lot of those oxymorons out there.

Throw Russian boogeymen in there too

Trump's National Security Advisor was convicted of lying to federal officials about his contacts with Russian agents. So their reach was all the way up to the WH.

Flynn: "I was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime​

Judge Emmet Sullivan is reviewing Michael Flynn's acknowledgments that he was wrong in his actions and takes responsibility, and also describes how Flynn made note of the circumstances of the interview in the White House.
Sullivan is walking through what both sides wrote in their pre-sentencing court papers and the FBI memos memorializing Flynn's interview with the FBI. Sullivan reminds the courtroom Flynn says he was "unguarded [at his interview] because he did not receive a warning and was not represented by counsel."

Flynn: "I was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime

Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Trump, will be sentenced after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation following charges brought by Robert Mueller, the special counsel heading the federal investigation into alleged collusion with Moscow.

Client Challenge

 

[The Barbarian]

Franklin and Madison did not intend for the First Amendment to protect Satan-worshippers practicing human-sacrifice --that was my point

He did point out that it wasn't limited to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, however...

Jefferson reported triumphantly that the legislative effort to insert “Jesus Christ” in the preamble to the Virginia Statute was defeated, establishing that religious freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821, Ford 1:62

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, recognizing that all Americans have the same rights,

That's the pure Liberal faith for you... you can't see anything outside of the framing of individual rights. Nothing ranks higher as a fundamental Good or Virtue in society.

or that Trump endorses LGBTs is not that same as "widespread, state-sponsored celebration."

but it is widespread and state-sponsored.... whether by DC, FBI and other agencies, state governments, or major cities. (or President Trump, as you pointed out) . Not to mention it is celebrated by nearly every major corporation. Sorry, just the facts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, recognizing that all Americans have the same rights,

That's the pure Liberal faith for you

Libertarian, actually. But I think a lot of liberals agree with the idea. It is in the Constitution, you know.

Nothing ranks higher as a fundamental Good or Virtue in society.

As James Madison observed, societies lacking that value tend to be degenerate and not very good places.

but it is widespread and state-sponsored....

Trump waving an LGBT banner is hardly "state sponsored." But it is true that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an integral part of American values.

One of the nice features of such values is, you get to disagree with them, without becoming a criminal. Lucky you.

 

[JSRG]

I don't think they did. However the decision didn't limit the right of the state to mandate emergency vaccinations to state and local levels.

If you mean it didn't specifically say "this is only the case for states, not federal law", I believe this is true. However, the entire case was concerning state law, not federal law. In other words, that means it doesn't necessarily apply to federal law, as there are objections that can be made to a federal vaccination law one cannot make to a state or local vaccination law.

There are different restrictions on federal law than on state law in the Constitution. For state law, it works like this: A state law cannot do anything prohibited by the Constitution (e.g. anything in Article I Section 10), cannot violate the state's own constitution, and cannot contradict any federal law. Beyond that, anything's good.

Federal law is more complicated. There is a specific set of powers assigned to congress in the Constitution, and any act of congress must be an exercise of one of those powers. Thus a lot of debates about the constitutionality of a law end up being about whether it's an actual exercise of one of the powers. On top of that, there's various things spelled out in the Constitution that the federal government cannot do (e.g. anything in Article I Section 9).

Therefore, while the Supreme Court might have said it was okay as a state law, for it to work as a federal law, it must also specifically exercise a power of congress. Looking over the powers of congress, I do not see anything that would authorize a federal vaccine mandate. The best argument would probably be the Commerce Clause ("The Congress shall have power... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"), which is what is typically used to justify various medical laws passed by congress. However, a law actually requiring people to use particular drugs seems to go much further than any prior case has allowed for the Commerce Clause. In any event, even if a federal vaccine mandate does fall within a power of congress, it hasn't been declared to be such by any court as of yet.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you mean it didn't specifically say "this is only the case for states, not federal law", I believe this is true. However, the entire case was concerning state law, not federal law. In other words, that means it doesn't necessarily apply to federal law, as there are objections that can be made to a federal vaccination law one cannot make to a state or local vaccination law.

The court did not specify such a thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

The court made no such distinction. However such efforts have always been by state and local governments. As you suggest anything involving interstate commerce would allow the federal government to take action. But mostly state and local.

There wasn't a vaccine for the virus, so the primary precautions that local and state governments took were banning public gatherings and shutting down schools, churches, and movie theatres.​

Photos show the precautions US cities took to 'flatten the curve' during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic

From fresh air treatments to gargling saltwater, cities across the country took steps to fight the deadly contagion that killed 675,000 Americans.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[lifepsyop]

As James Madison observed, societies lacking that value tend to be degenerate and not very good places.

Ah yes, nothing compares to the beautiful societies brought to you by Liberal Democracy.

Trump waving an LGBT banner is hardly "state sponsored." But it is true that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an integral part of American values.

I said:

"but it is widespread and state-sponsored.... whether by DC, FBI and other agencies, state governments, or major cities..."

Which you choose to ignore because reality apparently makes you uncomfortable.

One of the nice features of such values is, you get to disagree with them, without becoming a criminal. Lucky you.

So you are back to pretending people in Liberal Democracy have freedom of association?

 

[ralliann]

God doesn't give us the right of association, either. We are to treat all people with love, regardless of their race, place in society, etc... So the Civil Rights laws are God's message.

What does our association with certain people, have to do with how we treat others out side of that association? What does Association mean to you.

 

[Merrill]

There was no suspension of the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled that a vaccine mandate is constitutional.

So the argument fails from a false premise.

It is more complicate than that. See this

Current constitutional issues related to vaccine mandates | Constitution Center

The Covid-19 delta variant’s spread may force federal and state authorities to re-examine public safety policies related to vaccine requirements. Here is a brief review of the constitutional precedents and laws related to mandates at the federal and state levels.

constitutioncenter.org

The court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment has changed since the 1905 decision, and even though it remains precedent, recent efforts to enact vaccine mandates have been rejected. Example:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Biden administration mandate that large businesses require their employees to either be vaccinated or tested once a week for the coronavirus. In a 6-3 order, the justices blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency rule for businesses with more than 100 employees — one that would have impacted more than 80 million workers."

The Jacobson vs. Massachusetts 1905 decision was a bad one, even though the intentions were good. The decision rested on this concept of state's interest vs. the individual, and the individual was federally-protected in that instance (14th Amendment)

The decision was then used as precedent the uphold a Virginia law that allowed for the compulsory sterilization of people deemed "intellectually unfit" and physically disabled individuals

Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and more recently, the 1905 decision was used as grounds for state lockdown orders (and church closures) and the suspension of certain medical services such as abortion.

So the case has been used as justification to sterilize people with mental and physical disabilities, and force flower shops out-of-business (while keeping casinos and pot-dispensaries open).

 

[The Barbarian]

As James Madison observed, societies lacking that value tend to be degenerate and not very good places.

Ah yes, nothing compares to the beautiful societies brought to you by Liberal Democracy.

Compared to this...

... I'll take America, thank you. I understand that North Korea is accepting immigrants. Don't let the door hit you.

"but it is widespread and state-sponsored.... whether by DC, FBI and other agencies, state governments, or major cities..."

Trump waving an LGBT banner is hardly "state sponsored." But it is true that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an integral part of American values. Which you choose to ignore because reality apparently makes you uncomfortable.

So you are back to pretending people in Liberal Democracy have freedom of association?

Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950s and 1960s in which certain states were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the state. “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.” 5 “[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,” 6 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the state had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.
...
For there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.” 13 This decision was followed in three cases in which the Court held that labor unions enjoyed First Amendment protection in assisting their members in pursuing their legal remedies to recover for injuries and other actions. In the first case, the union advised members to seek legal advice before settling injury claims and recommended particular attorneys;14 in the second the union retained attorneys on a salaried basis to represent members;15 in the third, the union recommended certain attorneys whose fee would not exceed a specified percentage of the recovery.16 Justice Black wrote: “[T]he First Amendment guarantees of free speech, petition, and assembly give railroad workers the rights to cooperate in helping and advising one another in asserting their rights. . . .” 17

Thus, a right to associate to further political and social views is protected against unreasonable burdening,18 but the evolution of this right in recent years has passed far beyond the relatively narrow contexts in which it was born.

Freedom of Association: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

That one kinda backfired, didn't it? It began as a way of reducing freedom and ends up as a means of guaranteeing freedom.

 

[The Barbarian]

There was no suspension of the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruled that a vaccine mandate is constitutional.

So the argument fails from a false premise.

It is more complicate than that. See this

(someone disagrees with the SCOTUS on constitutionality)

Yes, that happens.

The court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment has changed since the 1905 decision, and even though it remains precedent, recent efforts to enact vaccine mandates have been rejected. Example:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Biden administration mandate that large businesses require their employees to either be vaccinated or tested once a week for the coronavirus. In a 6-3 order, the justices blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency rule for businesses with more than 100 employees — one that would have impacted more than 80 million workers."

Which the argument was, went beyond the mandate of the OSHAct.

So the case has been used as justification to sterilize people with mental and physical disabilities, and force flower shops out-of-business (while keeping casinos and pot-dispensaries open).

As you might have realized by now, there's a balance between individual rights and public safety. That people have sometimes erred in one or the other direction is not an argument against it.