• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 31st anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Expect action on government regulation of religious services

If the church is so sacred, why haven't all of these very religious people been hunkering down there for weeks? There is no freedom to infect others, but they can certainly assemble and worship.
 
Nothing against worship, however these people will not just endanger themselves, but they endanger others in their community who don't share their faith. This is where the problem lies.

What right do they have to impose their "religion" on others by spreading disease and causing this SIP and economic hardship to extend in time for others who have been abiding by it?

What right do they have to put strain on the local health workers and EMTs who do not share their "religion" who will need to care for them and risk their own families lives?

What right do they have to take critical ventilators and ICU beds from others who may need it?

What right do they have to burden taxpayers with this cost?
 
Last edited:
WVBaker said:
Schenck v. United States is notable for establishment of the "clear and present danger" standard regarding a law's constitutionality when it comes to free speech restrictions. Not religious freedom.

Any restrictions on free speech, were to be applied against this standard on a case-by-case basis. Case-by-case is very important terminology.
Click to expand...
This is the point. States are limiting assembly of all groups in general, not just religion. No concerts, no baseball, no basketball, no soccer. In this case, what make religion different?
 
Isn't peaceful freedom of assembly also a Constitutional right?
 
DrQ said:
Isn't peaceful freedom of assembly also a Constitutional right?
Click to expand...

And I can yell FIRE in a crowded theater too, right? Freedom of speech!

I can’t? You mean there are limits to our freedoms?

Oh.
Harry
 
CalGalTraveler said:
Nothing against worship, however these people will not just endanger themselves, but they endanger others in their community who don't share their faith. This is where the problem lies.

What right do they have to impose their "religion" on others by spreading disease and causing this SIP and economic hardship to extend in time for others who have been abiding by it?

What right do they have to put strain on the local health workers and EMTs who do not share their "religion" who will need to care for them and risk their own families lives?

What right do they have to take critical ventilators and ICU beds from others who may need it?

What right do they have to burden taxpayers with this cost?
Click to expand...

You're basing this on many assumptions. I would agree with that if, and this is a very big if, you point to just one case, only one, that a member of any congregation unequivocally did what you assume will happen by them attending their church, any church, any religion. Let's look at this as criminal court case for just a moment only because, you're blaming these individuals for causing harm to another. When an individual is accused of any such action, the burden of proof, maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, which translates to: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

Is it possible? Of course it is however, using that assumption, we should shut every door on every business or office in the country. We both know, there's no way that can be done. What do we choose and why do we choose it? Is a person's religious freedom essential or not? I happen to believe it is and you, as well as others, believe it's not. Just like I'll never convince you otherwise, you'll never convince me. We can simply agree to disagree.
 
@WVBaker Forget court cases. This is common sense. This is about spreading a virus. If they are within 6 feet of each other during services and congregating, that will spread the virus.

If they become ill they will spread to health workers and the community outside their congregation (What about their rights?)

Many churches and even the Pope have found ways to worship without infecting others so they are still exercising their religious freedom. No one is stopping that. Very simple.
 
Last edited:
CalGalTraveler said:
@WVBaker Forget court cases. This is common sense. This is about spreading a virus. If they are within 6 feet of each other during services and congregating, that will spread the virus.

If they become ill they will spread to health workers and the community outside their congregation (What about their rights?)

Many churches and even the Pope have found ways to worship without infecting others so they are still exercising their religious freedom. No one is stopping that. Very simple.
Click to expand...

We could debate this till the end of time and not see eye to eye. You have your view and I have mine and the common sense involved is that you're not going to change my view and I'm not going to change yours.

I'm not going to debate why the Pope made his choice, given the cases at the Vatican I can see why. Bring the Pope into this and I think we're done. Have a good Easter though.
 
Last edited:
@WVBaker I just read your article in the initial post:

1) It seems irrational to prevent people from worshiping in their cars as long as it is social distancing.
2) Using Fox News as a source is biased so who knows what's real.

There must be more to this story.
 
Last edited:
Brett said:
In North Carolina college basketball is religion :)
Click to expand...
The current state of which is not looking so good (at UNC specifically)...
 
CalGalTraveler said:
@WVBaker I just read your article in the initial post:

1) It seems irrational to prevent people from worshiping in their cars as long as it is social distancing.
2) Using Fox News as a source is biased so who knows what's real.

There must be more to this story.
Click to expand...

What's irrational is Mayor Greg Fischer’s ban on drive-in church services. There's numerous news sources that ran the same story.

Speaking of biased, should we include CNN or MSNBC in that list? Please, for the sake of everyone, don't even travel down that path.
 
These days, the Boston tea party would be found to present a "clear and present danger,"
as the participants were not engaged in essential activities and did not remain 6 feet apart.

Just saying that we seem awfully quick & willing to surrender our liberties,
 
Talent312 said:
These days, the Boston tea party would be found to present a "clear and present danger,"
as the participants were not engaged in essential activities and did not remain 6 feet apart.

Just saying that we seem awfully quick & willing to surrender our liberties,
Click to expand...

Do you suggest we take up arms and fight on the side of covid-19 instead?


Harry
 
Going to religious services is a necessary part of the practice of most religions. The right to practice religion is protected by the First Amendment, but it is not absolute; instead it is subject to reasonable restrictions. So in this time of Covid-19, religions are and should be subject to reasonable regulations.

President Trump has declared a state of emergency. In substance he has left it to each state to determine how best to protect the rights of its citizens. That makes sense, because a one size fits all approach does not seem the best way to deal with the emergency at this time. I believe each Governor has then implemented regulations governing the emergency.

It’s been one month since the national emergency has been declared. Some of the issues that have been raised by this discussion are:

1. What oversight should the legislature of a State have over the Governor’s decisions on how to implement that State of Emergency? Has any State Legislature reviewed the Governor’s decisions?

2. What rights do the local executives, such as Mayors and County Executives, have to make their own emergency declarations? For example, the Governor of Kentucky has ordered social distancing. What if the Church is prepared to comply with his regulations by requiring cars to stay more than six feet apart and follow other regulations determined by the Governor, and the Church can demonstrate that it is able to follow those regulations enforcing social distancing, does the Mayor have the right to ban a Church service? That issue is similar to what is going on in New York now, where the Mayor of New York City has closed the school system for the rest of the school year and the Governor of New York says the Mayor doesn’t have the authority to do that.

3. In determining how to enforce the state of emergency continues, should churches be considered an essential service? If that is the case, is the government required to treat churches differently a tavern or Disney World.

4. What powers do the Courts have to get involved? Let’s say that a Governor decides that he will revoke the declaration of emergency and thus vacate the stay in place order. Does a group most effected by that decision (e.g. elderly or those with autoimmune issues) have the right to block that order on the grounds that decision is presenting a risk to them?
 
Talent312 said:
These days, the Boston tea party would be found to present a "clear and present danger,"
as the participants were not engaged in essential activities and did not remain 6 feet apart.

Just saying that we seem awfully quick & willing to surrender our liberties,
Click to expand...

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.”
Clarence Darrow
 
DrQ said:
Isn't peaceful freedom of assembly also a Constitutional right?
Click to expand...
Yes, and here in Michigan we are practicing it safely with a 15,000 strong motorcade Wen 15th protest to the Governor/State capital to state our freedom of speech rights in our cars 6 feet apart.
 
One third of Covid cases in Sacramento county are related to churches.

And obviously it doesn’t just endanger the church goers - it endangers everyone they come into contact with. At grocery stores and other unavoidable locations.

BTW I was incredibly moved by my church’s online Easter service.
 
IMO...I see no harm in drive-in services as long as everyone abides by social distancing and remains in their cars. If the justice department chases local government over preventing in-person services, then that is a waste of taxpayer money because in-person services spread illness.
 
JohnPaul said:
One third of Covid cases in Sacramento county are related to churches.

And obviously it doesn’t just endanger the church goers - it endangers everyone they come into contact with. At grocery stores and other unavoidable locations.

BTW I was incredibly moved by my church’s online Easter service.
Click to expand...

Your source?
 
Bunk said:
Going to religious services is a necessary part of the practice of most religions.
Click to expand...

Had this part of your post been omitted, your post would have been much stronger because the remaining points in your post are excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top