Is religious liberty threatened in USA?

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

PSA: There really is nothing here. Don't put lemon juice on your screen, and certainly do NOT apply heat.

A tad too late. Do you have any tips on how to remove heated lemon juice from my screen?

[JohnsonJones]

We should be careful, but when do we put one right over another.

Is the right to life LESS important than the right to religion.  By this, is it less important to follow guidelines that may save someone's life and as a result end up KILLING a bunch of people (Some could even say it's akin to 3rd degree murder as they were already warned it could happened, told how to avoid it from happening, and still did it) than to have the liberty of meeting up with a bunch of likeminded people to worship?

No one is being told they have to be Methodist, or Catholic, or Shiite, or Buddhist, or any other religion.  We are not being dictated HOW we must believe.  We are simply being told not to meet in large groups as that can spread the virus. 

I've been to countries that do NOT recognize the Church or most other religions on almost an annual basis for many years.  I have seen what the repression of religion is like first hand.  What we are having in the US right now is NOT IT from what I can see in regards to the restrictions on meeting due to a current virus spreading around in our nation.  I can freely show a Book of Mormon (or Bible or any other religious book I choose) in my car, holding it, or having it prevalent and NOT be accused of spreading a false religion or wonder if I'll be tossed in prison for that or not. I can access these boards and talk about my religion without fear of violating the laws and being tortured or jailed.  I can worship in my home and discuss it.  I can even proselyte online (if one knows how to do so) without fear of government reprisal.  There are many things I can do due to freedom of religion that I would not be able to do in some nations which severly restrict it or do not recognize any religion other than one specific state recognized one.

Is it a temporary restriction?  Absolutely...but with the attempt (and it IS an attempt, no one knows if it will ultimately be successful, for all we know just as many will catch it and die after social distancing is lifted) to preserve life and the pursuit of happiness.  We have had some of the freedom of movement restricted.  However, with the internet available, much of what was done in some churches already should still be available (for example, broadcast the sermon on the internet, you can gather together in that fashion while still having social distancing).

Now, if it does NOT stay temporary...I'd say that's a completely different matter.  It goes from a temporary measure of trying to preserve some lives to being longer term or more permanent, than it goes to being tyrannical and a power grab. 

Extending out to those unable to attend church meetings is something our church has done for years for some.  It may not be as successful in nations where Religious liberty really IS not an option as their recorded sacrament meetings and other resources similar are not shown or available.  For those who cannot go to church or otherwise in the U.S. and those who can get the channels that do so they have recorded sacrament meetings which one can watch on TV and various other resources for those seeking religious enlightenment (the spoken word..etc).  I just wish they'd take the opportunity at some future date when we can gather together again to record MORE of these meetings to have a much greater variety than what they currently have.

However, to say that we reserve the right to not only kill ourselves but those around us so that we can attain the right to gather (and it really is more about the freedom to peacefully gather than religion at this point in my opinion) in a church (I think) is trying to point out one freedom taken temporarily (or so we hope) so that we can destroy the rights of another in regards (possibly their right to life when they have not done anything to us or to warrant it) to the restrictions upon us in this crisis thus far.

The protest in Michigan though they are using the front of it as religious or otherwise, it really is people going stir crazy and wanting to peacefully gather as well as protesting another thing that MAY be threatened in Michigan (which is the pursuit of happiness).  The thing that kicked it off was the Governor deciding that Walmart and other stores already selling essential items needed to rope off other areas of the store such as gardening (which some may consider essential), tools (another item many consider essential) toys, and other such things beyond the food aisles.  This could be as an over reach into restricting the right to property as these stores were ALREADY open selling items.  I don't see their protests so much about religion, but more as the right for happiness and government going a little too far in it's grasp of what we can even think (aka...what is actually essential and what is not...who defines it and what happens when a governor decides what we think is essential such as gardening supplies is not what they consider essential).

Edited April 18, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Clarity after reading through it this morning

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

I believe that the laws of the state should be respected. And I'm not even advocating for universal enforcement of recent LGBTQ marriage laws, just the use of NPO policy to incentivise conpliance. And yes, I believe that churches that pay taxes should absolutely be eligible for government assistance as needed (like our current situation).

Currently there is separation of church and state -  That is very different than a non profit organization because many political organizations also fall into that category.  But there is another reason that I am concerned - it means that the government can force collection of funds from citizens that are not of a specific religion for things that are specific to that religion.  You are opening a can of worms that frankly I am not sure you realize.  There is a reason for separation of church and state to prevent the church and state from becoming the same entity.  I am just surprised you are opening a can of worms that took over 1500 years to put in the can - and G-d only knows how long it will take if that Pandora's box is reopened. 

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Actually we should be adamant about not giving up any, including church attendance.  AFAIK there is no legal basis to arrest anyone attending church. 

I get the thinking and have been sympathetic for most of my life. Yet, here we are, with both of our churches acting as model citizens by voluntarily going to online services and practicing stringent social distancing.  The mayor of Louisville, KY was overbearing in his ban on drive-in churches. The mayor of Greenville, MS was off the charts in ordering state troopers to give $500 tickets to all who attended a drive-in church service. Power does indeed tend to corrupt. On the other hand, during a pandemic would government not be practicing its basic role of protecting citizens from enemies foreign and domestic by restricting us from any disease-spreading behaviors?

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I get the thinking and have been sympathetic for most of my life. Yet, here we are, with both of our churches acting as model citizens by voluntarily going to online services and practicing stringent social distancing.  The mayor of Louisville, KY was overbearing in his ban on drive-in churches. The mayor of Greenville, MS was off the charts in ordering state troopers to give $500 tickets to all who attended a drive-in church service. Power does indeed tend to corrupt. On the other hand, during a pandemic would government not be practicing its basic role of protecting citizens from enemies foreign and domestic by restricting us from any disease-spreading behaviors?

The short answer to your question is no. 
 

Let’s keep this in perspective. Covid 19 is not the bubonic plague that wiped out 1/3 of Europe in the Middle Ages. Most people that get it recover. And the ones that don’t tend to have serious health issues anyway.

This lock down is ridiculous and a way that the elites are trying to control people. Just because they think they can. 

[prisonchaplain]

@mrmarklin, I suspect that the reaction to this virus is over-cautious. However, while it's not the Bubonic plague, neither is it the flu. Death rate seems to be at 3% or so. Of course, the main problem is that there is no current vaccine. So, if 3% is too low, when does government step in? 5% 10% 40%? I hate collectivism in general. Sometimes we gotta come together though. Again, even our church leaders believe so. We can debate the influence of politics, the election, passions about POTUS, etc. However, though this may not be the apocalypse, neither is it a nothing burger.

Edited April 18, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@mrmarklin, I suspect that the reaction to this virus is over-cautious. However, while it's not the Bubonic plague, neither is it the flu. Death rate seems to be at 3% or so. Of course, the main problem is that there is no current vaccine. So, if 3% is too low, when does government step in? 5% 10% 40%? I hate collectivism in general. Sometimes we gotta come together though. Again, even our church leaders believe so. We can debate the influence of politics, the election, passions about POTUS, etc. However, though this may not be the apocalypse, neither is it a nothing burger.

We don't even know if it's 3%.  Many people are asymptomatic.  We don't have any idea how many people actually have it or died from it.  That doesn't mean I'm claiming "it's just like the flu".  

The answer is never.  The government shouldn't ever take away my liberty to protect me from myself.

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

 The answer is never.  The government shouldn't ever take away my liberty to protect me from myself.

Might not the government have to take away, temporarily, a measure of my liberty in order to protect you from me?  YES, I know there are would-be dictators and collectivists who will try to parlay their temporary control into something more permanent. Vigilant liberty-lovers must be in guard. Still, in a pandemic my liberty ends when I pose a threat of infecting your family.

Edited April 18, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Might not the government have to take away, temporarily, a measure of my liberty in order to protect you from me?  YES, I know there are would-be dictators and collectivists who will try to parlay their temporary control into something more permanent. Vigilant liberty-lovers must be in guard. Still, in a pandemic my liberty ends when I pose a threat of infecting your family.

You don't pose a threat of infecting my family, unless I choose to enter your space or you choose to enter mine.  In the former example, that is my choice.  In the latter, the government can't protect me and I have the right to protect myself.

[prisonchaplain]

55 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You don't pose a threat of infecting my family, unless I choose to enter your space or you choose to enter mine.  In the former example, that is my choice.  In the latter, the government can't protect me and I have the right to protect myself.

There are just too many meeting spaces that are not yours or mine . . .

[Grunt]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are just too many meeting spaces that are not yours or mine . . .

There are.  And we choose whether or not we enter them.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Might not the government have to take away, temporarily, a measure of my liberty in order to protect you from me?  YES, I know there are would-be dictators and collectivists who will try to parlay their temporary control into something more permanent. Vigilant liberty-lovers must be in guard. Still, in a pandemic my liberty ends when I pose a threat of infecting your family.

Be it that be the government's actions but it is NOT.   Rather, they take away your liberty and mine regardless of whether I'm infectious or not.  If you pose a threat to my family then you must be stopped - for example, you have tested positive of the virus and you go to a grocery store licking all the ice cream.

[prisonchaplain]

Suffice to say I believe government can use law enforcement to reduce the spread of a pandemic. There are examples where officials have gone too far. However, had we adopted no restrictions and allowed everyone to do as they wished, with only minimal government regulations, I suspect (cannot prove) that our death toll would be many times higher.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Suffice to say I believe government can use law enforcement to reduce the spread of a pandemic. There are examples where officials have gone too far. However, had we adopted no restrictions and allowed everyone to do as they wished, with only minimal government regulations, I suspect (cannot prove) that our death toll would be many times higher.

The “I suspect” is the issue.  And it has ALWAYS been.  That comes from the principle of - the government knows better than we do on how to protect ourselves.  Which leads to - the journalists that can control the information gets to have ultimate power to lead the public by its nose.  Which then leads to - they can send us all to slaughter and we’d happily die for perceived honor or they can make us consent to having them touch our crotches under the pretext of saving our lives.

[Grunt]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Suffice to say I believe government can use law enforcement to reduce the spread of a pandemic. There are examples where officials have gone too far. However, had we adopted no restrictions and allowed everyone to do as they wished, with only minimal government regulations, I suspect (cannot prove) that our death toll would be many times higher.

Of course, but that is always the case.  If the government outlawed alcohol and cigarettes, the death toll from them would be less.  Those are choices, though.  I still can choose not to smoke or drink, just as I could choose not to go out in public.