-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XXV-

a reply to: Creep Thumper

It's pretty simple. The Government doesn't have the authority to stop people from worshiping. Which is exactly what they're trying to do here.

And talking about being responsible for the safety of others, it's sorta similar to the branch of the church who likes to hold rattlesnakes as a part of their worship. It's dangerous. The government doesn't have the right to stop them from doing that either.

Mormons believe that its their religious right to take numerous wives contrary to our laws. Government doesn't have the right to stop them.

Ali dodged the Vietnam draft because it was contrary to his beliefs. Sure, he went to jail, but it was unjust and the Government later recognized it.

Government does not have the right to interfere in religious practices - period. I mean, if you're hurting people they'll shut you down, but they can't preempt you from doing harm to yourself or others.

This is Orwellian policy and think. If it ever goes to court these people will be proven wrong.

Reviewing the LE aspect, I would say local police were following directives from higher up.

Personally, I wouldn't have been recording plates/VINs, but they were probably doing what they were told. I would have gone with a small notice under the wiper.

You have to remember that all 50 states have been declared a collective disaster area. People take this sh*t pretty seriously.

This is considered a global pandemic. You know how countries around the world are handling it. People are dying, economies are shrivelling. Various militaries have been called up and activated to address what many people consider to be a serious health threat.

Think about the whole, not just the 1A.

a reply to: PioneerFigureSkating

. . . but they can't preempt you from doing harm to yourself or others.

Listen to what you've just said.

"The 1A gives me the right to attend church even if I endanger myself or others."

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Think about the whole, not just the 1A.

The "1A" is literally our first Constitutionally granted right. The 2A was passed to enforce the first.

Yes, it's a serious matter. Deadly serious actually.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

This does not factor into it.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Interesting dig by @Inevitable_ET...
looks like Patriots were prepared to deal with this crisis:

Army's Seattle Field Hospital Closes After 3 Days, Without Treating a Single Patient

Washington State started as the "epicenter" of the US Crisis.
Army Field Hospital set up to reduce burden on local hospitals in Seattle.
3 days later closed it without seeing a single patient

How do you stop a hoax pandemic?
Send in the Military to "help".
Since governors can't sent fake sick patients to the military field hospitals,
there only option is to claim the "pandemic is over".

Maybe this is also why there was so little press covered at US hospitals?
Why the media was caught using footage from Italian hospitals?

a reply to: PioneerFigureSkating

What if your religion involves robbing banks every Tuesday or human sacrifices on Saturday afternoon in the town square? All freedoms have limits. During a declared plague emergency, preventing people from gathering is not unreasonable. If they defy the order and get sick, are you willing to abandon them or would you use resources to save them in spite of their stupidity?

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

This does not factor into it.

Then you discount your own faith.

You don't see that in asserting your right to go to church you may be negatively impacting the health of others, which is contradictory to Christian teaching?

Your approach to this is basically "f**k you, I'm going to be selfish and go to church because the Bill of Rights says I can."

You're the Burger King. You want it your way right away and people who are trying not to become ill from this virus can go to hell because Jefferson said so.

a reply to: pteridine

What if your religion involves robbing banks every Tuesday or human sacrifices on Saturday afternoon in the town square?

Strawman. As I already stated, if your practice causes harm to others you will be shut down but the Government doesn't have the authority to say I think you will in the future harm others, therefore, I am shutting you down.

This is Orwellian.

The entire point though is that this is leading to an inevitable court battle. And my position is that the courts had better side with the 1A. Especially considering we know this entire thing is a farce to begin with.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

This does not factor into it.

Then you discount your own faith.

You don't see that in asserting your right to go to church you may be negatively impacting the health of others, which is contradictory to Christian teaching?

Your approach to this is basically "f**k you, I'm going to be selfish and go to church because the Bill of Rights says I can."

You're the Burger King. You want it your way right away and people who are trying not to become ill from this virus can go to hell because Jefferson said so.

This entire post is out of line. No, I am not any of those things. I'm not even a Christian. This is about the law. Which is why I said the question of Christian vs unchristian doesn't factor into it.

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

This does not factor into it.

Then you discount your own faith.

You don't see that in asserting your right to go to church you may be negatively impacting the health of others, which is contradictory to Christian teaching?

Your approach to this is basically "f**k you, I'm going to be selfish and go to church because the Bill of Rights says I can."

You're the Burger King. You want it your way right away and people who are trying not to become ill from this virus can go to hell because Jefferson said so.

This entire post is out of line. No, I am not any of those things. I'm not even a Christian. This is about the law. Which is why I said the question of Christian vs unchristian doesn't factor into it.

The only thing I'm out of line on is assuming you're Christian. For that apologies.

The rest is still true.

You are willing to practice religious hypocrisy.

originally posted by: crankyoldman
DJT Tweet

Stafford, Emergency Powers, State of Emergency, War and the governors demanding the Federal Gov. take full responsibility so they can finger point later pretty much puts him in charge.

76,89325 followers and climbing every day. Eyes on 777

That's strange. Lot of ats members have been telling me that its all on the governors.
So trump is saying the reason we are still in lock down is because he personally hasn't lifted it?

a reply to: Creep Thumper

You are willing to practice religious hypocrisy.

Again, I do not "practice" religion. Not Christianity or any other sort. At least, not outside the confines of my own home. So no, I'm not "willing" to do any of the things you accuse me of or try to assign to me.

Take up your anti-religious crusade with someone who has a dog in the fight. That argument isn't for my liking.

My point is about the law. A governor in Kentucky has no more right to ban people from going to church than the governor in Michigan has the right to ban people from going from residence to residence.

It's troubling to me that you don't seem to understand this.

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: Creep Thumper

You are willing to practice religious hypocrisy.

Again, I do not "practice" religion. Not Christianity or any other sort. At least, not outside the confines of my own home. So no, I'm not "willing" to do any of the things you accuse me of or try to assign to me.

Take up your anti-religious crusade with someone who has a dog in the fight. That argument isn't for my liking.

My point is about the law. A governor in Kentucky has no more right to ban people from going to church than the governor in Michigan has the right to ban people from going from residence to residence.

It's troubling to me that you don't seem to understand this.

I understand it completely. I don't agree with it under the circumstances.

What I'm trying to understand is why you are so selfish about considering other people in this situation.

Again, apologies for assumptions regarding your religious position.

Your argument though is still a form of religious hypocrisy.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

What I'm trying to understand is why you are so selfish

Stopped reading right there.

Have a good day.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: PioneerFigureSkating

. . . but they can't preempt you from doing harm to yourself or others.

Listen to what you've just said.

"The 1A gives me the right to attend church even if I endanger myself or others."

Don't you think that's a bit unChristian?

If the government has EVIDENCE of direct harm to others being more likely than not because of a specific action by a specific Individual, then great.
They don't.
If there is evidence there that some specific individual is positive for COVID-19 and ignoring a quarantine, then lock him up and quarantine everyone else there.
The government can shut down a bar for overserving with evidence, but they don't ban bars en masse because someone might potentially be overserved one day.

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: pteridine

What if your religion involves robbing banks every Tuesday or human sacrifices on Saturday afternoon in the town square?

Strawman. As I already stated, if your practice causes harm to others you will be shut down but the Government doesn't have the authority to say I think you will in the future harm others, therefore, I am shutting you down.

This is Orwellian.

The entire point though is that this is leading to an inevitable court battle. And my position is that the courts had better side with the 1A. Especially considering we know this entire thing is a farce to begin with.

Assemblies can be curtailed in times of emergencies. This is about assembly and has nothing to do with limiting freedom to practice a religion; just to assemble. Many churches have gone to online services because of the dangers of contagion. They protect not only their adherents but others in the community who might become infected by them.
If said church was dependent on spiritually inspired cash donations in the collection plate, they'll have to settle for checks for a few more weeks.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: crankyoldman
DJT Tweet

Stafford, Emergency Powers, State of Emergency, War and the governors demanding the Federal Gov. take full responsibility so they can finger point later pretty much puts him in charge.

76,89325 followers and climbing every day. Eyes on 777

That's strange. Lot of ats members have been telling me that its all on the governors.
So trump is saying the reason we are still in lock down is because he personally hasn't lifted it?

Thats exactly what he is saying.

I saw so many members saying its not trump, its all the liberal governors that have done the shutdown.

Trump disagrees.

How can anyone defend trump doing this?

a reply to: pteridine

"He who would give up his liberty for his safety deserves neither."

It isn't just some phrase people pass around to feel good. It has real, actual meaning. I'm done with this conversation. It's shocking to me that people don't understand this. These Governors are behaving outside their authority. I'm not interested in debating, or really even conversing, with people who don't understand this.

Have a good day.

originally posted by: PioneerFigureSkating
a reply to: pteridine

What if your religion involves robbing banks every Tuesday or human sacrifices on Saturday afternoon in the town square?

Strawman. As I already stated, if your practice causes harm to others you will be shut down but the Government doesn't have the authority to say I think you will in the future harm others, therefore, I am shutting you down.

This is Orwellian.

The entire point though is that this is leading to an inevitable court battle. And my position is that the courts had better side with the 1A. Especially considering we know this entire thing is a farce to begin with.

Let's make something even more clear here since people are having trouble. NO ONE is impeding on your right to practice religion. The bill of rights is still intact. Your rights are not being infringed. No one is saying you can't practice your religion freely. What they're saying is that the churches themselves ARE NOT ESSENTIAL. You can practice your effin religion at home without potentially dangering the lives of others. Its people with that mindset that make a night in jail for assault completely worth it. My daughter will die if she catches this sh*t. Hands down, no sugar coating it. People with that :ill do whatever the eff I want" attitude is whats ruining everything everyone is bitching about. Staying home, public places being locked down, state parks, recreational activities, CHURCHES -- they're all shut down because of people with your attitude. Spring break? Yup, all those dumbass kids had the same mentality as you. See what happened? Just...stop. I don't mean to attack you but you're being extremely unreasonable and naive, or just plain ignorant, not sure. Apologies if any offense is taken from this, but I'm tired of this attitude. People with that attitude are the same ones that bitch and whine because they're not allowed to do anything. The. Root. Of. The. Problem.