Catholic diocese and Orthodox Jewish synagogues ask Supreme Court to block New York's Covid limits

[Marcus1124]

You're free to make that argument but it's off topic in this thread because the religious groups it is about aren't presenting the arguments for all the restrictions to be lifted, they're presenting arguments for the restrictions to be specifically lifted from religious organisations (or theoretically, stricter restrictions to be imposed on secular organisations too).

Not quite, the Supreme Court has held that religious organizations may be subject to generally applicable laws, but the moment there is any arbitrariness introduced it triggers review under the Free Exercise Clause. What we have here is complete arbitrariness, public officials deciding with no objective standards what is "essential" and not, as well as the various other levels and restrictions and that is what makes it a valid Constitutional question.

 

[Marcus1124]

Yep, your "pure statistics" have killed 250,000+ Americans to date. I wonder if they were as smart as you...

The flu kills 30-60 thousand a year, most of whom could have been saved by the same draconian measures imposed for COVID. What principle do you adhere to that makes you ok with those deaths, but not COVID deaths? Exactly what number between 60k and 250k is the magic number when you start giving a damn about human life, and why that number?

 

[Marcus1124]

Freedom of assembly? It's the abuse of that 'freedom' by irresponsible idiots which is causing surges in rates of infection-and I don't care who is doing it, left, right or otherwise, they are the real danger; idiots who believe their 'rights' outweigh the health of their nation and its citizens.

So, you believe that politicians may limit constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (which have been fought and died for) if they believe it is in the national interest? What limiting factor would you place on this power, Can government make you exercise to stay fit? Can they impose all these draconian restrictions every flu season to save 20-50 thousand lives a year? I will repeat again, people have fought and died to guarantee these freedoms, so the principle that our liberties are, in principle, worth dying for is firmly established in our history.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The flu kills 30-60 thousand a year, most of whom could have been saved by the same draconian measures imposed for COVID. What principle do you adhere to that makes you ok with those deaths, but not COVID deaths? Exactly what number between 60k and 250k is the magic number when you start giving a damn about human life, and why that number?

COVID kills many more than influenza, and is much more contagious. Also, there's a vaccine for influenza, but not yet for COVID. HUGE difference.

 

[it's just me]

Yes you are, and the enemy has so far killed over 250,000 Americans. You could be next.

Your enemy is yourself.

 

[Marcus1124]

The problem they are going to run into with these restrictions is that the limits are arbitrary, with no real basis, and ignore both the size and precautions taken by the church. It makes no sense to place the same occupancy limits on a church that has 100 seats as one that has 2000 seats. Or to compare a restaurant to a church. NY is going to run into a religious freedom issue with these limits.

Trying to say that 'all churches are super spreaders' again ignores the fact that there are differences in churches, and precautions taken. Yes, there were a few 'evangelical' churches that had issues - but they were also packing people in and ignoring other precautions. Most churches are taking this very seriously, and going above and beyond to protect people.

For example, I'm Catholic, and all the churches in my diocese (several counties) follow strict precautions. Only mass (worship services) is allowed on campus. (Unless there is an affiliated school, in which case only the school staff is allowed at the school and vice versa.) Occupancy is limited to 25% (even with the state limit much higher). They physically block every other isle, and instruct people to leave space between families. Everyone wears masks. No shared things - no holy water, communion wine, shaking of hands, etc. Everything gets disinfected after services, and sits, unoccupied, between. No choir. There is singing of hymns, but that's not exactly swinging from the rafters. In speaking to my Jewish friends, their synagogue is taking similar precautions.

Churches aren't the problem point in New York, and I think they are going to start getting knocked back by the court.

In fact, that is the whole problem with the way this pandemic has been approached, if you accept as a matter of legal principle the power of the State to impose arbitrary and draconian measures for the public good, what is the legal limiting principle?

 

[Marcus1124]

COVID kills many more than influenza, and is much more contagious. Also, there's a vaccine for influenza, but not yet for COVID. HUGE difference.

And yet we could still save tens of thousands of lives a year using the same measures during flu season. What is the precise number of lives where this becomes a valid exercise in government restricting fundamental liberty and freedom in the public health interest?

If (as governor Cuomo has) you declare that no measure is to extreme to save a single human life, why don't we do this every year to save tens of thousands of flu victims? Why don't we impose a national 5 mile per hour speed limit to prevent thousands of traffic deaths. I could list hundreds of things that we as a society would dismiss out of hand as being to costly for the number of lives it would save. It is irresponsible for any public leader to make such an astoundingly idiotic statement that there is no price too high bear to save even a single life, when we as individuals, and as a society do not behave that way in any other area of life and public policy.

So, unless you are willing to support such draconian measures to save human life where ever we can, let's drop the self-deluded, or cynically disingenuous pretense that this is solely about human life.

 

[HonestJoe]

Except the various "rules" that governors are imposing are not "generally applicable"

Quite possibly, but that's the next step in the discussion. That can't be discussed until it has ben clearly established whether the principle we're aiming for is equal treatment (and therefore, equal compared to whom) or unconditional religious freedom and it always seems to be a struggle to get a clear answer to that question.

 

[iguanaman]

Really? We did not engage in widespread use of masks in any of the previous pandemics of the last century, in in the 1910s. the 1950s. or the 1960s.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear given the demographic distribution of serious and fatal cases, that the real danger is heavily concentrated in readily identifiable groups and that far from the draconian society-wide mitigation efforts many have insisted upon. far less economically and socially devastating efforts targeted at the truly at risk groups would have been far more effective without the widespread harm the current efforts have had.

I have believed from the beginning that much of the public thinking around this has been heavily, albeit subconsciously by pop culture entertainment, depicting many examples of global pandemics wiping out all but a handful of human survivors. When people her global pandemic, somewhere in their subconscious it triggers thoughts of post-apocalyptic dystopian futures where society has completely collapsed and human civilization has regressed and is fighting to survive. Even the worst pandemics, before any notion of modern medicine only wiped out 20-30 percent of the population (the "Black Death"). However tragic every death is, we were never facing anything even remotely comparable.

What is becoming clear is that the false information that people like you seem to be driven to distribute is a major cause of death in this pandemic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What possible reason could you have? Do you actually want more people to die? I can't help think that may be true. Is it really is a death cult that is determined to kill as many people as possible?

 

[iguanaman]

Really? We did not engage in widespread use of masks in any of the previous pandemics of the last century, in in the 1910s. the 1950s. or the 1960s.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear given the demographic distribution of serious and fatal cases, that the real danger is heavily concentrated in readily identifiable groups and that far from the draconian society-wide mitigation efforts many have insisted upon. far less economically and socially devastating efforts targeted at the truly at risk groups would have been far more effective without the widespread harm the current efforts have had.

I have believed from the beginning that much of the public thinking around this has been heavily, albeit subconsciously by pop culture entertainment, depicting many examples of global pandemics wiping out all but a handful of human survivors. When people her global pandemic, somewhere in their subconscious it triggers thoughts of post-apocalyptic dystopian futures where society has completely collapsed and human civilization has regressed and is fighting to survive. Even the worst pandemics, before any notion of modern medicine only wiped out 20-30 percent of the population (the "Black Death"). However tragic every death is, we were never facing anything even remotely comparable.

 

[iguanaman]

That's a "compassionate liberal" for you.

So you don't believe God will protect you in church. You are smarter than you look. Stay home and pray he will hear you there too won't he?

 

[iguanaman]

Doing things like this endangers people they come in contact with outside their religious events, if they got Covid-19 at those events and then were in contact with others outside those events.

I think it MIGHT be acceptable to allow these events if everyone who attended agreed to quarantine for 2 weeks after the event.

And we all know that will never happen.. They feel entitled to endanger others. Gatherings like church services have only one purpose...to spread the virus. But the saddest part is that they are admitting their faith is so weak that it cannot survive even a few more months without be renewed by a priest or rabbi.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So, you believe that politicians may limit constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (which have been fought and died for) if they believe it is in the national interest?

Even Kavanaugh appears to believe that, and he was in the majority. He wrote that he viewed there not being an issue with government restricting religious gatherings. He just saw New York's as unfair relative to other restrictions and thus called it discriminatory.

 

[Phys251]

(CNN)While incidences of Covid spike across the country, the Supreme Court is once again considering arguments from houses of worship that say pandemic-related restrictions are violating their religious freedom rights.
The two latest cases arise out of New York as a Roman Catholic Diocese in Brooklyn and a group of Orthodox synagogues are challenging Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order limiting in-person attendance at houses of worship to 10 or 25 people in geographic "red" and "orange" zones.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/politics/new-york-covid-religious-rules/index.html

I say if they want to spread the virus in houses of worship that is fine with me. They just need to agree that they will not be admitted to any hospital for Covid 19 infections. We do not have the space for those that willfully contract it. They can let God sort it out. Don't they believe that God will protect them?

2000s: Catholic priests are caught raping kids. Catholic Church:
2020: Brooklyn diocese wants to pack people into their churches during a pandemic. Catholic Church:

 

[Neomalthusian]

And yet we could still save tens of thousands of lives a year using the same measures during flu season.

That's probably exaggerated, as the flu usually kills between 12,000 and 50,000 people a year. We should try to reduce flu deaths. One good way to start might be to convince more people to get vaccinated. Less than half of American adults opt to get the flu vaccine.

The difference between the flu and this is a matter of scale. A mild flu season might kill about 12,000 Americans, whereas Covid has killed more than that in the last 10 days. It's a different virus, we have fewer defenses (immunity wise and vaccine-wise), and it spreads fast enough and is severe enough that it could pretty easily overwhelm our hospitals and result in unavoidable care rationing.

What is the precise number of lives where this becomes a valid exercise in government restricting fundamental liberty and freedom in the public health interest?

There is no "precise number," but I don't see you protesting seat belt laws and speed limits, which are permanent/perpetual regulatory restrictions, and car accidents kill a lot fewer people annually than Covid has this year, which calls for temporary restrictions.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If (as governor Cuomo has) you declare that no measure is to extreme to save a single human life,

I never said any such thing. Why are you lying about me?

 

[Marcus1124]

That's probably exaggerated, as the flu usually kills between 12,000 and 50,000 people a year. We should try to reduce flu deaths. One good way to start might be to convince more people to get vaccinated. Less than half of American adults opt to get the flu vaccine.

The difference between the flu and this is a matter of scale. A mild flu season might kill about 12,000 Americans, whereas Covid has killed more than that in the last 10 days. It's a different virus, we have fewer defenses (immunity wise and vaccine-wise), and it spreads fast enough and is severe enough that it could pretty easily overwhelm our hospitals and result in unavoidable care rationing.



There is no "precise number," but I don't see you protesting seat belt laws and speed limits, which are permanent/perpetual regulatory restrictions, and car accidents kill a lot fewer people annually than Covid has this year, which calls for temporary restrictions.

The numbers are not exaggerated, but even if it is a single death, it proves the point. You say we should "try" to reduce flu deaths, but have not advocated measures that you support for COVID response, even though those same measures would save lives during every flu season, which proves my point, you do NOT actually support any and all measures, regardless of the cost to save even a single human life.

You still cannot answer the fundamental question of principle, why do you care more about COVID fatalities than other causes? And if there is no "precise number" what are your views based on other than completely random emotion devoid of any actual thought or reasoning. Absolutely nothing. Each and every one of us must admit to ourselves that we ALL believe it is ok to make tradeoffs between human lives and other things, including basic freedom and liberty, personal convenience, and economic well being. In most instances the cost-benefit tradeoffs are so intuitive and obvious that it saves people like you from the moral discomfort of consciously thinking about those tradeoffs you are willing to make, but it does not alter the basic fact that you do.

So why not a five mile per hour national speed limit? Why not lockdowns, and other restrictions every year to save thousands of lives? Be honest, because you realize that the cost of doing so to society simply is not worth it in terms of the restrictions on our liberty, convenience, and economic well being. The principle is the same, only difference is where it falls on the cost/benefit spectrum. And to be frank, we make tradeoffs every day that places the value of a human life at far more than the costs we have imposed for lives saved in this situation.

 

[Marcus1124]

I never said any such thing. Why are you lying about me?

Which part of the word "IF" do you not understand.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The numbers are not exaggerated, but even if it is a single death, it proves the point. You say we should "try" to reduce flu deaths, but have not advocated measures that you support for COVID response, even though those same measures would save lives during every flu season, which proves my point, you do NOT actually support any and all measures, regardless of the cost to save even a single human life.

That’s true, I don’t support any and every conceivable measure to save even a single human life from death by a virus. I support more aggressive responses to more aggressive and destructive viruses, and less aggressive responses to less aggressive and destructive viruses. Covid is many many times more aggressive and destructive of human life then the flu.

You still cannot answer the fundamental question of principle, why do you care more about COVID fatalities than other causes?

Because other causes of death aren’t causing a global pandemic that threatens to overrun our hospitals and result in the need to deprive Carradine people because we have run out of resources to help them. Covid is doing that.

Your line of questioning appears to reveal that you don’t know or acknowledge what a pandemic is, or what makes a pandemic different from other things that are not pandemics.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Fred, no one on the left has set out to assist chains, or large franchise restaurants like McDonald's, over the smaller businessman. Where that is happening it is due to circumstances, local ordinances, buyer preference, and the like. Let's not insert politics into the COVID experience where it doesn't exist.

Perhaps most leftists didn't set out to destroy small businesses but that's what's happening and we can see it. We also know that big business is financing BLM and Antifa. As well we know that big biz has profited greatly from the riots while regular folks are afraid to go to shopping areas.

If you were to Google the World Economic Forum, a group exclusive to the very, very rich and powerful, you'd see they are promoting BLM financially and through propaganda.

All the above is fact. The old expression of 'actions have consequences' seems lost on leftists, just as it always has. They're destroying the livelihoods of millions of their fellow Americans, attacking them in public and any response, no matter how slight, is labelled 'extreme right wing'.

Americans aren't laughing at the Leftists because they're the ones suffering directly from their actions but their financiers in Davos certainly are.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

COVID kills many more than influenza, and is much more contagious. Also, there's a vaccine for influenza, but not yet for COVID. HUGE difference.

Yes, they may have the vaccine but people still die in large numbers. Even during the worst flu epidemics no government has suspended the Constitution and the rights therein.

 

[MTAtech]

So, you believe that politicians may limit constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (which have been fought and died for) if they believe it is in the national interest? What limiting factor would you place on this power, Can government make you exercise to stay fit? Can they impose all these draconian restrictions every flu season to save 20-50 thousand lives a year? I will repeat again, people have fought and died to guarantee these freedoms, so the principle that our liberties are, in principle, worth dying for is firmly established in our history.

You’re right the constitution says that churches can do whatever the f they want — oh wait.
related, if a religion believes in human sacrifice what makes you believe that politicians can limit their religion’s freedom? People fought and died to guarantee these freedoms to kill people.

 

[joko104]

The faith was started by people who were murdered for it. So regardless of what you think you’re saying it’s clear we’re to worship even at danger to our lives.

You are wasting your words. Most progressives - meaning corporate-fascists - oppose the very concept of individuality and personal freedom. Everyone exists to serve the corporate collective in their ideology. Thus, the concept that people were murdered for defiance of government authority and social behavior restrictions were justified. Everyone must accept that resistant is futile in a world in which 99+% of the population are essentially borg drones under the authority the corporate collective plutocrats and their enforcers.
Then again I could be mistaken nor does what I think matter whatsoever.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

You’re right the constitution says that churches can do whatever the f they want — oh wait.
related, if a religion believes in human sacrifice what makes you believe that politicians can limit their religion’s freedom? People fought and died to guarantee these freedoms to kill people.

Ask yourself whether the right of murdering people falls within those guaranteed within the Constitution.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

You are wasting your words. Most progressives - meaning corporate-fascists - oppose the very concept of individuality and personal freedom. Everyone exists to serve the corporate collective in their ideology. Thus, the concept that people were murdered for defiance of government authority and social behavior restrictions were justified. Everyone must accept that resistant is futile in a world in which 99+% of the population are essentially borg drones under the authority the corporate collective plutocrats and their enforcers.
Then again I could be mistaken nor does what I think matter whatsoever.

Seems like you're familiar with the ambitions of the World economic Forum and their strategies. https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/