Obeying Unconstitutional edicts

[stvns78]

Let me say first that I think people should stay home as much as possible to prevent the spread of this virus. I am very saddened by the illness and death this virus is causing.

I am two thing above all:
1. A Christian
2. A freedom loving, flag waving, red blooded American

I am also VERY concerned about what our local, state, and federal governments are doing. I have seen and read about many examples of governments overstepping their Constitutional boundaries. I have read about mayors threatening to fine and imprison people who violate their stay-in-place orders. Denying citizens their right to peacefully assemble, religious freedoms, freedom of movement. Forced quarantines are both unconstitutional and unenforceable.

I feel that any violation to our liberties must be immediately met with push back regardless of the situation.

I do not trust any of our leaders. Every citizen should have a healthy distrust of those who have been given positions of power. I would argue we are already living under more tyranny than those who rebelled against England those centuries ago.

If we are willing to give up our liberties even temporarily then we should expect them to be given up for lesser reasons in the future. It is a Slippery Slope.

Plagues and pandemics were a thing when our founders created this country, yet i see no language that suggests its ok for the government to suspend our rights during such pandemics.

This comes to the part I am wrestling with. I want to save as many people as possible from dying from this disease yet I fear the cure of suspending liberties will kill more in the long term. 20th century alone should makes us very worried about how many people governments can kill. The bible tells me to submit to the governing authorities but what does that really mean? The founders of our governing authority told us we have a duty to resist tyranny. So if i defy an edict from the current governing authority that our founders tells us to defy am I disobeying God? Were our founders disobeying God when they rebelled against England? If evil men and women pervert the authority that which God placed over us, do I still have a duty to obey? Or did God allow the perversion and we are still subject to his judgement if we disobey? See the problem?

My goal is to be in compliance with Gods will but also defy that which should be defied. Obviously the first is more important than the later.

We need to walk a fine line between saving as many people as we can and preserving ALL of our liberties. Again let me say we should all stay at home as much as possible. However if necessity dictates I do something that will violate an unconstitutional edict than violated it shall be. The only reason I would not violate it out of shear principal is that I could be a vector to do harm to others.

 

[sfs]

I am also VERY concerned about what our local, state, and federal governments are doing. I have seen and read about many examples of governments overstepping their Constitutional boundaries. I have read about mayors threatening to fine and imprison people who violate their stay-in-place orders. Denying citizens their right to peacefully assemble, religious freedoms, freedom of movement. Forced quarantines are both unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Whether they are unconstitutional is a question for Federal courts to decide; that's what "constitutional" means in the US system. You have no right, as a citizen or as a Christian, to ignore duly appointed authority based only on your opinion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Let me say first that I think people should stay home as much as possible to prevent the spread of this virus. I am very saddened by the illness and death this virus is causing.

I am two thing above all:
1. A Christian
2. A freedom loving, flag waving, red blooded American

I am also VERY concerned about what our local, state, and federal governments are doing. I have seen and read about many examples of governments overstepping their Constitutional boundaries. I have read about mayors threatening to fine and imprison people who violate their stay-in-place orders. Denying citizens their right to peacefully assemble, religious freedoms, freedom of movement. Forced quarantines are both unconstitutional and unenforceable.

I feel that any violation to our liberties must be immediately met with push back regardless of the situation.

I do not trust any of our leaders. Every citizen should have a healthy distrust of those who have been given positions of power. I would argue we are already living under more tyranny than those who rebelled against England those centuries ago.

If we are willing to give up our liberties even temporarily then we should expect them to be given up for lesser reasons in the future. It is a Slippery Slope.

Plagues and pandemics were a thing when our founders created this country, yet i see no language that suggests its ok for the government to suspend our rights during such pandemics.

This comes to the part I am wrestling with. I want to save as many people as possible from dying from this disease yet I fear the cure of suspending liberties will kill more in the long term. 20th century alone should makes us very worried about how many people governments can kill. The bible tells me to submit to the governing authorities but what does that really mean? The founders of our governing authority told us we have a duty to resist tyranny. So if i defy an edict from the current governing authority that our founders tells us to defy am I disobeying God? Were our founders disobeying God when they rebelled against England? If evil men and women pervert the authority that which God placed over us, do I still have a duty to obey? Or did God allow the perversion and we are still subject to his judgement if we disobey? See the problem?

My goal is to be in compliance with Gods will but also defy that which should be defied. Obviously the first is more important than the later.

We need to walk a fine line between saving as many people as we can and preserving ALL of our liberties. Again let me say we should all stay at home as much as possible. However if necessity dictates I do something that will violate an unconstitutional edict than violated it shall be. The only reason I would not violate it out of shear principal is that I could be a vector to do harm to others.

I could have written exactly the same thing had I been as eloquent as you. I believe it is our duty as Christians to do whatever we can to ease the pain of others. Therefore following the instructions of the health experts seems to be not only the wise but the loving Christian decision. However, when the government oversteps its constitutional powers to remove the right to peaceful assembly and religious worship I must oppose that both as a citizen and a Christian. As a Christian, I am told to give unto Caesar only that which is Caesar's and nothing more. According to the U.S. Constitution those rights are not Caesar's to remove but belong to the people. According to the DOI they are not from Caesar but from God's alone. As the constitution and DOI are still the authoritative documents upon which the United States government has legitimacy, then Christians are duty bound to respect them. So I find myself in a dilemma. I see Christians acting in ways I find irresponsible being punished for them in ways I find unconstitutional. I can only decry both actions as wrong IMO. Which makes me seem like I am contradicting myself to those people who cannot see the validity of the other side of the argument. I do not see the authorities as being malevolent for thinking it is more important to keep every possible person from dying thanot ois to respect the Constitution and believing that the measures they have ordered would do that. Nor do I see a group of Christians as being malevolent for thinking that worshipping God and being in direct communion with each other outweighs any risk of furthering a disease. I am however, of the opinion that each is wrong. In the end it is my opinion vs their opinion so only God knows the truth.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Whether they are unconstitutional is a question for Federal courts to decide; that's what "constitutional" means in the US system. You have no right, as a citizen or as a Christian, to ignore duly appointed authority based only on your opinion.

I do not see that that is what one does when one reads the Constitution and sees that the words say exactly what they say. If that is an opinion, then why would a court's opinion be more valid than one's own. More legally binding perhaps but just as the early Christians were not required by God to worship the Emperor we are not required to worship the courts. The Constitution is a written document that is not the least bit complicated in its language. If a court interprets it in such a way as to pervert the simple meaning of the words therein we are not required as Christians to pretend that it is not a perversion.

 

[stvns78]

Whether they are unconstitutional is a question for Federal courts to decide; that's what "constitutional" means in the US system. You have no right, as a citizen or as a Christian, to ignore duly appointed authority based only on your opinion.

I agree and disagree. The courts are made up of men and women who do not always make the right decision, they can and do uphold laws that have no basis in the Constitution. Some things are so blatantly unconstitutional that a court is not necessary and defiance becomes duty. We have every right as a citizen to ignore those laws. I do agree that the courts are typical avenue for laws to be decided if they are constitutional or not.

Then our founders had no right to rebel against England? At some point tyranny is imposed by the "authority" and the courts will be an extension of that tyranny.

For example Abortion has somehow become a Constitutional right, same goes for gay "marriage". Rights are not granted by our Constitution they are codified and protected by it.

 

[expos4ever]

However, when the government oversteps its constitutional powers to remove the right to peaceful assembly and religious worship I must oppose that both as a citizen and a Christian.

Really? It is difficult for me to believe you really believe this. Are you a gun rights supporter? Let's assume that you are. Do you believe the government would be "overstepping" its legitimate powers if it were to enforce a rule that you cannot go into a church, point your gun in a random direction and fire? I assume you would not object to such a constraint on your gun rights.

So when hundreds of people knowingly assemble in close quarters during an outbreak of a contagious and dangerous virus, how is that any different?

 

[expos4ever]

This thread illustrates the dangers of applying good principles in an exception-less manner. For example, freedom of expression is a great principle. But, as the saying goes, you are not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. Here, I think, is the real issue underneath this thread: We are all mentally lazy, and we all like simplicity; therefore, we resist coming to terms with the necessary nuancing we must undertake in unusual situations like this.

I think it is clear that, given the clear truth that there are many irresponsible people out there, and that this virus is such a serious threat, government should indeed "overstep" in this case.

 

[sfs]

If that is an opinion, then why would a court's opinion be more valid than one's own.

Because that's how our system works. Also, they can put you in prison if they disagree with your opinion. You can't do the same to them.

 

[stvns78]

So it seems like you (sfs and expos4ever) are suggesting I have a duty to obey the governing authority regardless of situation and whether or not their edicts may be constitutional? Is that right? If so i respect your opinions and will reflect on that.

I think it is clear that, given the clear truth that there are many irresponsible people out there, and that this virus is such a serious threat, government should indeed "overstep" in this case.

I agree people are irresponsible, but we have that right to be. Our government was never granted the right to overstep, your assertion that they should I fundamentally disagree with.

I worry about the precedent that will set and the future usurpation it will bring. I will find it very hard to obey such commands that (seem to me) to have no basis in Constitutional law. Many many people have fought and died to protect and defend those liberties and I could not in good faith roll over and willingly let go what they died for. It is something I am wrestling with, hence the post.

God bless and be well.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Really? It is difficult for me to believe you really believe this. Are you a gun rights supporter? Let's assume that you are. Do you believe the government would be "overstepping" its legitimate powers if it were to enforce a rule that you cannot go into a church, point your gun in a random direction and fire? I assume you would not object to such a constraint on your gun rights.

So when hundreds of people knowingly assemble in close quarters during an outbreak of a contagious and dangerous virus, how is that any different?

It is impossible for me to believe that you do not know the difference between an individual intentionally setting out to harm people actually going ahead and harming people and Christians wishing to worship God in communion with other believers taking a risk that it might possibly harm others if they then do not take strict precautions to avoid harming others unwilling to take that risk. Let me also point out the difference between the right to bear arms and the lack of a right to murder others using those arms.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because that's how our system works. Also, they can put you in prison if they disagree with your opinion. You can't do the same to them.

Are you saying that having the power to coerce others into compliance make one's opinion more valid? I do not agree.

 

[expos4ever]

It is impossible for me to believe that you do not know the difference between an individual intentionally setting out to harm people actually going ahead and harming people

Come on, man. Surely you know that I fully understand this. When you walk into a church knowing that you may harbour a potentially deadly virus, you are intentionally putting others at risk. Just like the guy who points his guns randomly (I chose "randomly" precise to make the situations more analogous).

 

[dzheremi]

It is impossible for me to believe that you do not know the difference between an individual intentionally setting out to harm people actually going ahead and harming people and Christians wishing to worship God in communion with other believers taking a risk that it might possibly harm others if they then do not take strict precautions to avoid harming others unwilling to take that risk.

That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the virus doesn't know the difference.

You want to catch a deadly disease to prove some point to people who don't care one way or another what you're trying to prove? Go ahead. You have no right to expose others not involved in making that decision to the inherent risk, however -- especially when abstaining from it is proven to lower risk, as is the case with communicable airborne diseases like COVID-19. This is the same rationale that is already behind compelled vaccination (to build herd immunity in a population) and banning smoking in restaurants (to prevent lung diseases brought on by second-hand exposure to smoke). You do not have any inherent right to expose others to risk because you are personally fine with assuming it yourself.

If you don't like it, found your own country and pass whatever stupid laws you'd prefer; just make sure to do it far, far away from other people. The rest of us who do not believe in tempting God by being foolish in the context of a pandemic that really doesn't care about anyone's religion are (unhappily, but willingly) staying home because we recognize that this is what loving our neighbor demands at this time. Better to deprive ourselves and help others in the process than to get what we want and recklessly destroy others' health (and potentially our own).

Surely you can still be a Christian in your own home, and if you can't it might be good to use this time to reflect on any of the Lord's warnings concerning the phenomenon of desiring to be seen praying (fasting, etc.) among men.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Come on, man. Surely you know that I fully understand this. When you walk into a church knowing that you may harbour a potentially deadly virus, you are intentionally putting others at risk. Just like the guy who points his guns randomly (I chose "randomly" precise to make the situations more analogous).

You would have to do an awful lot more than that to make the two situations in any way analogous to each other. In one situation people are ecersixzing two legitimate Constitutional rights in the other the person is not. The proper response of government to a religious organization insisting upon ecersixzing both rights would be to quarantine the building. Not allow those inside to leave until they were all tested negative for the virus. That would be Constitutionally valid.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

You are right that our liberties are being compromised by the use of reason that our liberties are dangerous to others. But you are right that freedoms are being taken away without due process for instance people who own summer homes from New York are being banned from going to them and waiting it out there. This is restricting movement and violating private property rights. The financial emergency might very well be greater in scope of destruction and a cause for further loss of freedoms as the crisis reaction solution strategy is a tool of the globalist who do not share our heritage or values on liberty and freedom and self determination. I think this topic really is intertwined with Bible prophecy which paints a picture of moral decline leading to a rise in a global totalitarian state that leaves the people impoverished as the laws of reaping and sowing are bringing the harvest to a ultimate climax of the fulfillment of those things decreed for this days.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the virus doesn't know the difference.

You want to catch a deadly disease to prove some point to people who don't care one way or another what you're trying to prove? Go ahead. You have no right to expose others not involved in making that decision to the inherent risk, however -- especially when abstaining from it is proven to lower risk, as is the case with communicable airborne diseases like COVID-19. This is the same rationale that is already behind compelled vaccination (to build herd immunity in a population) and banning smoking in restaurants (to prevent lung diseases brought on by second-hand exposure to smoke). You do not have any inherent right to expose others to risk because you are personally fine with assuming it yourself.

If you don't like it, found your own country and pass whatever stupid laws you'd prefer; just make sure to do it far, far away from other people. The rest of us who do not believe in tempting God by being foolish in the context of a pandemic that really doesn't care about anyone's religion are (unhappily, but willingly) staying home because we recognize that this is what loving our neighbor demands at this time. Better to deprive ourselves and help others in the process than to get what we want and recklessly destroy others' health (and potentially our own).

Surely you can still be a Christian in your own home, and if you can't it might be good to use this time to reflect on any of the Lord's warnings concerning the phenomenon of desiring to be seen praying (fasting, etc.) among men.

I don't have to found my own country as the Constitution is already there.

 

[expos4ever]

You would have to do an awful lot more than that to make the two situations in any way analogous to each other. In one situation people are ecersixzing two legitimate Constitutional rights in the other the person is not.

But the whole point - and I should think this would be obvious - is that if exercising a Constitutional right endangers life, that right can be temporarily abrogated. Surely the writers of the Constitution were not thinking about pandemics when they enshrined the "freedom to assemble" right.

I am not suggesting that you fall under the scope of what I am about to say: Anyone who insists on meeting in large groups right now should be vigorously prosecuted - it is irresponsible, stupid, and wildly reckless.

The proper response of government to a religious organization insisting upon ecersixzing both rights would be to quarantine the building. Not allow those inside to leave until they were all tested negative for the virus. That would be Constitutionally valid.

Ok. To me, this is a bit of a technicality. All I care about is that nitwits should not be allowed to endanger us all just to hold a church meeting in person. If this can be achieved in a means that avoids having to violate the Constitution, I am all in favour of that.

 

[dzheremi]

The problem with the "just test everyone in the building" idea is that we don't have enough tests to test everyone who decides of their own free will to engage in dangerous activity that they've been specifically warned not to do. So who should get priority: the person who shows up to a hospital with symptoms after being told by their doctor/triage nurse that they need to come in for testing, or every yokel who shows up to some ill-advised big tent revival because they needed so badly to shake a tambourine with 500 of their closest friends and neighbors in the same space?

 

[stvns78]

Surely the writers of the Constitution were not thinking about pandemics when they enshrined the "freedom to assemble" right.

Anyone who insists on meeting in large groups right now should be vigorously prosecuted - it is irresponsible, stupid, and wildly reckless.

Rights are endowed to us by our creator not the Constitution. The Constitution is to limit government. The government shall make no law limiting our rights. As I said in my OP, pandemics were a thing in the 1700's, but the first amendment doesnt say "Congress shall make no law..... except in times of pandemics." I again fundamentally disagree with your assertion that people who do assemble be "vigorously" prosecuted. That would be a direct assault on our fundamental liberties.

I agree it is irresponsible, stupid, reckless, etc... However we have the right to be irresponsible, stupid, and reckless. I completely understand what you are saying about spreading the disease.

Again I will say people should stay at home but we need to be vigilant with our rights also. Also again as I said in my OP, we need to walk a fine line between keeping people healthy and safeguarding ALL of our rights.

 

[stvns78]

Lets not forget that our founders believed in the cause of liberty so much that they were willing to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"

The cause of liberty was so great they were willing to die for it. We have become so conditioned in this time that we value safety and security above our liberty. And as Ben Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

My goal of this post was to get others perspectives on how they deal with obeying Gods command of obeying our governing authorities and obeying (what they are convinced) unconstitutional edicts that our founders told us we have a duty to disobey. Perhaps its not a struggle for you, thats fine, I am looking for people who do struggle with this and how they come to terms if at all.