Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Josh]

I’m just saying that a country with absolutely sealed borders and church banned for over a year isn’t exactly at the top of my list.

Also has ridiculously unaffordable housing.

[Robert]

The 1st Amendment is what is forcing the states to stop religious practice restrictions now. It is what allows us to home school. It is what allows us to not be forced to serve in the military. We, as Anabaptists gain so much from it. The world gains indirectly because it does set an example of religious freedom that is copied, if not legally then culturally, in many places, but not in all.

The First Amendment really contains three equal rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly. The past year or so has been an interesting case study in how one's view of those three rights is really colored by one's political and religious perspective. In both the Anabaptist world and the world at large.

We have had many religious groups claiming an absolute right to worship however they choose, and regardless of whatever public health measures the government put in place to curtail pandemic spread. And many multiple deaths have been linked directly back to churches that chose to meet and violate all distancing guidelines and spread the disease amongst themselves and beyond.

At the same time we had a summer of protestors who were simply employing their absolute First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." while the government sought to curtail that right because some on the fringes sought violence, or because people were "blocking traffic" or did not have the correct permits or whatever. Just like in the case with churches, there were many bad actors who's actions lead to violence and death. But also large majorities who merely wanted to use their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition their government.

I see these two examples of First Amendment rights to be exactly the same but I think most Americans come down more on one side or the other. There are many (including some here), who seem to take an absolutist view of First Amendment religious rights, but are happy to see the government use a heavy fist to stamp out BLM protests. Who would delegitimate protest movements simply because they disagree with the message. On the other side, there are those who are happy to see the government use a heavy hand against Covid-spreading churches, but are tolerant of violence and property destruction on the part of protestors. I see the issues to be exactly the same, or twin sides of the same coin.

With respect to churches, there was a legitimate government interest in curtailing the spread of a deadly disease pitted against First Amendment freedom of religion. In some cases the government took a heavy hand and swept up churches who were acting responsibly in order to address those few who were not.

With respect to protests, there was a legitimate government interest in curtailing violence and property destruction pitted against First Amendment freedom of assembly. And in some cases the government took a heavy hand and swept up peaceful protesters who were acting responsibly in order to address those few who were not.

In the end, there churches who's actions lead directly to deaths and caused millions of dollars of cost to society in the form of increased Covid hospitalizations, lost productivity, and so forth. And there were protests or protest organizers who's actions led directly to deaths and caused millions of dollars of cost to society in the form of property destruction. Which cost to society was greater? I have no idea. But upholding First Amendment Rights does have very real costs.

The parallels are absolutely striking. In both instances I think it is the responsibility of the government and the courts to seek the least restrictive ways to regulate First Amendment rights in pursuit of other legitimate objectives (public health, law and order, etc.) And in a free society that is sometimes going to be both messy and controversial.

You and I see things much differently. I celebrate those protesting PEACEFULLY. I condemn those using violence. I do not make excuses for those using violence, on ether side, to press their viewpoint. I condemn those on January 6th that used violence, but celebrate those who were peacefully protesting, as I do with any BLM actions. You seem to excuse the violence on one side while you condemn it on the other. Does that seem inconsistent to you?

AND I talk directly to you about what you say and do not use blanket comments that tend to paint wide paths through others instead of talking directly to that person about their comments. This is quite unfair ... and inconsistent.

The past year we have seen a lot of stress against the 1st Amendment. We are now seeing courts validate that and call a halt to administration's abuses and encroachment of the 1st Amendment. Speech, religion, assembly AND press have been pushed and the courts are finally catching up and stopping much of it. If it was not for the 1st Amendment, I doubt we would see much return to normalcy in the US. Canada is using helicopters to find hidden church gatherings IN THE OUTDOORS and then stopping them.

[Robert]

A little different than the 1st Amendment, but I think the tone of it matches.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/florida-c ... 59874.html

The First District Court ruled 2-1 to overturn last year's decision by Alachua County Circuit Judge Donna Keim.
“The trial court simply looked at the right asserted by Green too narrowly, relying on the wrong privacy jurisprudence,” wrote Judge Adam Tanenbaum, who was joined by Judge Robert Lon, in the order handed down on June 11.

“The right to be let alone by government does exist in Florida, as part of a right of privacy that [Florida's Supreme Court has declared to be fundamental. … [The Supreme Court] has construed this fundamental right to be so broad as to include the complete freedom of a person to control his own body. Under this construction, a person reasonably can expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will. Florida’s constitutional right to privacy, then, necessarily is implicated by the nature of the county’s mask mandate.”

The majority sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration. It didn't declare the Alachua County court ruling outright unconstitutional.

But Tanenbaum said that the lower court's decision to not grant an emergency injunction was incorrect and said that any law that affects privacy “is presumptively unconstitutional” and “must be subject to strict scrutiny and justified as the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest.”

He added: The right of privacy is a ‘fundamental’ one, expressly protected by the Florida Constitution, and any law that implicates it ‘is presumptively unconstitutional and noted that if a challenged law implicates a privacy right, the burden shifts to the government ‘to prove that the law further[s] a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way.’”

The judge also argued that "the threat of government-sponsored shaming was not an idle one” while noting that until recently, the face mask mandate seemed like it might never end.”

[Ken]

You and I see things much differently. I celebrate those protesting PEACEFULLY. I condemn those using violence. I do not make excuses for those using violence, on ether side, to press their viewpoint. I condemn those on January 6th that used violence, but celebrate those who were peacefully protesting, as I do with any BLM actions. You seem to excuse the violence on one side while you condemn it on the other. Does that seem inconsistent to you?

AND I talk directly to you about what you say and do not use blanket comments that tend to paint wide paths through others instead of talking directly to that person about their comments. This is quite unfair ... and inconsistent.

The past year we have seen a lot of stress against the 1st Amendment. We are now seeing courts validate that and call a halt to administration's abuses and encroachment of the 1st Amendment. Speech, religion, assembly AND press have been pushed and the courts are finally catching up and stopping much of it. If it was not for the 1st Amendment, I doubt we would see much return to normalcy in the US. Canada is using helicopters to find hidden church gatherings IN THE OUTDOORS and then stopping them.

I don't think we do see things that differently.

Living in the Portland metro I have been extremely fed up with all the protest violence and thought that the police should have been much much harsher in cracking down on the vandalism and violence. Most of the legitimate BLM protests were big daytime marches in other parts of the city that were entirely peaceful. I watched some of them. It was an entirely different young anarchist type element (mostly white) that would come out at night to do battle with the cops and cause destruction. I wanted to see a lot more of them get locked up. And honestly a lot more heads get banged. Although I recognize that is not right and would have been counter-productive anyway. But I don't use the violence of the anarchist types to tar and feather a much larger, more diverse, and peaceful social movement that is largely separate and featured young and old from all walks of life. Likewise the January 6th protesters who broke through police barriers, assaulted police officers, and broke into the Capitol in an attempt to stop a democratic process all broke the law and should be prosecuted. Those who did not do those things and merely protested on the Capitol mall were exercising their First Amendment rights. I trust the authorities to sort that out and distinguish between the two.

With respect to churches. I thought the vast majority were very responsible in how they accommodated pandemic precautions into their worship and church life. But there were a few defiant outliers who turned their services into super spreader events that literally killed people and not just their own members. And imposed tremendous costs on society in the form of all the excess hospitalizations that they caused. That happened here in the Pacific Northwest. We had one church choir practice here in WA that spread the disease to 52 people, hospitalized 12, and killed 2. It was 2-weeks before the lockdown started so they didn't violate any law but others were already taking precautions by that time. We had a Pentecostal church in eastern Oregon that did defy all of the Covid restrictions and caused an outbreak that sickened hundreds, hospitalized dozens, and killed several including local community members who were not even a part of the church. The societal cost of that one single church service ran into the tens of millions of dollars. But I don't think the irresponsible acts of a few should tar and feather the rest.

It hasn't just been Christianity that has had First Amendment clashes in recent years. Trump's Muslim Ban was an attempt to discriminate on a religious basis against an entire group simply because of the actions of a very tiny number of extremists who were not representative of the rest. The issues are exactly the same as with Covid restrictions and the courts rightly tossed out his first attempt but eventually deferred to the executive branch when they were re-written around nations of origin rather than religion.

Just like the First Amendment grants freedom to peaceful assembly and not violent assembly. It also simply states that the government will make no law regarding establishment of religion. It doesn't say that Christians are exempt from all laws passed for other non-religious purposes simply because they are Christian. I recognize not everyone shares this view. But I viewed pandemic restrictions to be similar to other public safety measures like speed limits. If the police pull a church bus over for going 80 in a 50 mph zone that isn't religious persecution. That is holding them to the same public safety law that applies equally to others. The speed limit isn't a law regarding an establishment of religion. I thought pandemic restrictions should have been applied equally to all public institutions whether they were schools, churches, stores, restaurants, or whatever without privileging one more than any other. I thought a lot of jurisdictions got that wrong when they came up with separate restrictions and or exemptions for every type of institution.

[Josh]

Ken,

Do you have an explanation for how the plain community at large kept meeting, but without the dire consequences you described for the groups that kept meeting in your area?

I mean, we’re a pretty big group here and nothing significant happened. No overloaded hospitals, no wave of deaths, nothing.

Meanwhile, NSW in Australia is considering going back locked down over 4 cases.

[temporal1]

Robert to Ken: ^^
You and I see things much differently. ..

i lean toward Robert’s view,
adding my penchant for NOT joining organized bullying political parties, blocs - and now, what i see as emerging political cults.
these are not of Jesus Christ.

all of these are solely about forcing particular agenda by use of the sword, with golden access to the public treasury -
including “open” uncontested access to indoctrination in public schools -
which equates to untold access to the public treasury without accountability. AKA, Piracy.

temptations are great. restraint is tough.

[Ken]

Ken,

Do you have an explanation for how the plain community at large kept meeting, but without the dire consequences you described for the groups that kept meeting in your area?

I mean, we’re a pretty big group here and nothing significant happened. No overloaded hospitals, no wave of deaths, nothing.

Meanwhile, NSW in Australia is considering going back locked down over 4 cases.

The only plain community I am directly familiar with is Belleville PA where I have family. Last winter the little county of Mifflin PA peaked with some of the highest Covid infection and death rates in the entire state and the plain community there was not unaffected. There were lots of illnesses, hospitalizations and even deaths. According to the state's portal they have had 180 Covid deaths in Mifflin County which is, I don't know. Maybe close to 50% Menno/Amish, especially in the rural parts.

[Josh]

Ken,

Do you have an explanation for how the plain community at large kept meeting, but without the dire consequences you described for the groups that kept meeting in your area?

I mean, we’re a pretty big group here and nothing significant happened. No overloaded hospitals, no wave of deaths, nothing.

Meanwhile, NSW in Australia is considering going back locked down over 4 cases.

The only plain community I am directly familiar with is Belleville PA where I have family. Last winter the little county of Mifflin PA peaked with some of the highest Covid infection and death rates in the entire state and the plain community there was not unaffected. There were lots of illnesses, hospitalizations and even deaths. According to the state's portal they have had 180 Covid deaths in Mifflin County which is, I don't know. Maybe close to 50% Menno/Amish, especially in the rural parts.

Let’s focus on the largest community there is (Holmes). In any event, Belleville did not have full hospitals unable to accept patients.

Holmes County is a better analysis since it has its own hospital. Presumably, if covid were so bad, we could have observed its hospital’s ICU being full. Didn’t happen.

[Robert]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

[Ken]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

As requested: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Why+does ... utdoors%3F