Texas pastors demand a “religious liberty” exemption to coronavirus stay-at-home orders

expos4ever said:

Oh come on. I suspected this crisis would bring out this kind of weird thinking.

Click to expand...

If Constitutional law should be changed, then it should be changed. Until then, it is the law, and should be followed.

ananda said:

If Constitutional law should be changed, then it should be changed. Until then, it is the law, and should be followed.

Click to expand...

Exactly what kind of "Buddhist" are you?

expos4ever said:

This is possibly one of the dumbest things that I have read in these forums. And that is saying something.

Click to expand...

As a Christian, you have the potential to engage in inquisitional crusades, so you should be legally restricted for that possibility?

expos4ever said:

Exactly what kind of "Buddhist" are you?

Click to expand...

A Theravadan Buddhist. What kind of "Christian" are you?

ananda said:

What I'm speaking about has nothing to do with killing others, but what Constitutional law says.

Click to expand...

no you are talking about killing people, lets not pretend it's anything else. Your desire to ignore public saftey over the fear of goverment getting rid of religion is silly. The constitution allows for this and the sooner you guys figure this out the better. This isn't a game, 1000 people a day dying, many from churches and all we hear is, "But my rights." your right to go to church doesn't overide public saftey.

ananda said:

If it can be proven that they infected others, then they should be penalized.

Click to expand...

Ah, the libertarian way: pretend that statistical risk is fake and we just can't do anything about it.

loveofourlord said:

no you are talking about killing people, lets not pretend it's anything else. Your desire to ignore public saftey over the fear of goverment getting rid of religion is silly. The constitution allows for this and the sooner you guys figure this out the better. This isn't a game, 1000 people a day dying, many from churches and all we hear is, "But my rights." your right to go to church doesn't overide public saftey.

Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about Constitutional Law. If the existing Law is wrong, then a revision should be voted on, and ratified by the People.

evoeth said:

Ah, the libertarian way: pretend that statistical risk is fake and we just can't do anything about it.

Click to expand...

I don't take any hearsay - whether from those in black robes or white robes - as undeniable gospel truth. As an atheist, I'm sure you can understand that?

essentialsaltes said:

That restriction on in-person worship services has sparked a lawsuit, filed by three Texas pastors and Steven Hotze, a medical doctor and anti-LGBT Republican activist whose political action committee was labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These four men ask the Texas Supreme Court to strike down Hidalgo’s order, claiming, among other things, that it violates the “religious liberty” of pastors who wish to gather their parishioners together during a pandemic.

The case is named In re Hotze.

Click to expand...

A couple things to note here:

First the red highlighted shows the political bend the rest of the article would have. You could check that if the OP had included a link. Right there (same with right bias), I read it tongue in cheek.

Second, three pastors out of all of Texas's 29,472,295 inhabitants are not even worth paying attention to.

Especially considering the thousands of churches that have stopped their services, many going to online only while keeping feeding programs, first responder support and other programs running to help.

These three are to be pitied.

ananda said:

A Theravadan Buddhist. What kind of "Christian" are you?

Click to expand...

Ummmmm.....one with the sense to understand that the world is too complicated to be regulated by exception-less general principles?

Ummmm.....one with the sense to not do obviously stoo-pid things.?

Look: we all agree with the principles of the Constitution. But, come on man, use your noggin! Why would you imagine that the world is so simple that we can order our behaviour by a set of lofty abtsract principle that never allow any exceptions. To assemble in large groups now (without absolute necessity) is punishingly stupid and monstrously evil (the latter because there is a good chance people will die as a result and these people know this).

And what is evil if not needlessly subjecting others to an increased risk of illness and death?

Here is what I speculate is going on: You feel somehow ennobled by grabbing onto what we all agree is a great general principle - you feel like a hero to the cause of liberty because of your zealous attachment to this principle. Well, we all love the principle. But, um, we use our common sense as well.

expos4ever said:

Why would you imagine that the world is so simple that we can order our behaviour by a set of lofty abtsract principle that never allow any exceptions ... we use our common sense as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions. I'm saying that those exceptions should be properly judged, ratified, and enacted by the People as Law. If that process doesn't happen, then any government which imposes such things without the mandate of the People becomes lawless and illegitimate.

evoeth said:

Ah, the libertarian way: pretend that statistical risk is fake and we just can't do anything about it.

Click to expand...

Along with pretending that supreme court rulings somehow are not relevant to constitutional law.

Desk trauma said:

Along with pretending that supreme court rulings somehow are not relevant to constitutional law.

Click to expand...

They're not the final word.

ananda said:

I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions. I'm saying that those exceptions should be properly judged, ratified, and enacted by the People as Law. If that process doesn't happen, then any government which imposes such things without the mandate of the People becomes lawless and illegitimate.

Click to expand...

No one is even suggesting that we are not free to practice our religion. Just to change how that religion is shared---it can be done so over the internet, TV, publications. It is a call for responsible practice of our religion not the getting rid of it. You are so off base that it is ridiculous. When you get it, you are going to want to have medical help---there may not be any around to help you.

ananda said:

No, I'm talking about Constitutional Law. If the existing Law is wrong, then a revision should be voted on, and ratified by the People.

Click to expand...

there are already exceptions for it, your just ignoring it. There are already provisions to suspend rights in a crises, only one not getting anything here is you.

ananda said:

They're not the final word.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that helps you point of pretending that conditional law only involves the text of the constitution itself and not the courts rulings.

ananda said:

That may be how it's practiced, but I'm suggesting it's unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

It may be. And people that violate it might be found not guilty of such violations. After this is over. Meanwhile they can be arrested and even if deemed unconstitutional it is highly doubtful that they would be able to get paid for any damages.

ananda said:

If it can be proven that they infected others, then they should be penalized.

Click to expand...

You think that they cannot be? You have to remember that in law the standard of proof for a criminal case is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not the same as a mathematical proof. Statistics could be used to shown that beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of passing on the disease.

expos4ever said:

Oh come on. I suspected this crisis would bring out this kind of weird thinking.

Click to expand...

Bring out?

Clearly you are not familiar with Ananda's posts.

Desk trauma said:

I don't see how that helps you point of pretending that conditional law only involves the text of the constitution itself and not the courts rulings.

Click to expand...

Amateurs are quick to forget that the courts interpret the Constitution. An amateur's uninformed interpretation is wrong an amazing high percentage of the time. That reminds me, have you ever heard of Sovereign Citizens? They are a group that misinterprets the law and try to claim it does not apply to them. They then break the law and video it and quite often upload it to YouTube. Hilarity ensues.

ananda said:

If it can be proven that they infected others, then they should be penalized.

Click to expand...

Attempted murder it is, then.