Using the pandemic to curtail Christian worship and more

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
PART I

It was bound to happen without a properly thought out and detailed Presidential Executive Order which would forbid states, counties, and cities from attacking the First Amendment, particularly the freedom to worship as people see fit, while preventing the media from abusing freedom of speech.


The mayor of Louisville, Kentucky decided that he would stop churches from gathering together to worship, while allowing liquor stores to carry on their business as “essential”. On Fire Christian Center Inc, petitioned the US District Court in the Western District of Kentucky to place a Temporary Restraining Order on the mayor and city of Louisville from interfering with their plans for their Easter Service. District Judge Justin R. Walker accepted that petition and placed a Temporary Restraining Order on the mayor and the city. [CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-264-JRW]

But he also had a great deal to say about governments’ and their high handed actions against Christians in his Memorandum Opinion, from which I have quoted below:


On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion. But two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville’s Mayor Greg Fischer ordered Christians not to attend Sunday services, even if they remained in their cars to worship – and even though it’s Easter. The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, “beyond all reason,” unconstitutional.

According to St. Paul, the first pilgrim was Abel. With Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Sara, they “died in faith, not having received the promises” of God’s promised kingdom. But they saw “them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”

The Plymouth Colony’s second Governor, William Bradford, alluded to St. Paul’s pilgrims when he recalled, years later, his fellow colonists’ departure from England. The land they were leaving was comfortable and familiar. The ocean before them was, for them, unknown and dangerous. So too was the New World, where half would not survive the first winter. There were “mutual embraces and many tears,” as they said farewell to sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers, too young or old or fearful or frail to leave the Old World.

But they sailed west because west was where they would find what they wanted most, what they needed most: the liberty to worship God according to their conscience. “They knew they were pilgrims,” wrote Bradford, “and looked not much on those things” left behind, “but lifted their eyes to heaven, their dearest country and quieted their spirits.” The Pilgrims were heirs to a long line of persecuted Christians, including some punished with prison or worse for the crime of celebrating Easter – and an even longer line of persecuted peoples of more ancient faiths. And although their notions of tolerance left more than a little to be desired, the Pilgrims understood at least this much: No place, not even the unknown, is worse than any place whose state forbids the exercise of your sincerely held religious beliefs. The Pilgrims’ history of fleeing religious persecution was just one of the many “historical instances of religious persecution and intolerance that gave concern to those who drafted the Free Exercise Clause” of our Constitution’s First Amendment.” It provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” At the time of that Amendment’s ratification, religious liberty was among the American experiment’s most audacious guarantees.

For millennia, soldiers had fought and killed to impose their religious doctrine on their neighbors. A century before America’s founding, in Germany alone, religious conflict took the lives of one out of every five men, women, and children. But not so in America. “Among the reasons the United States is so open, so tolerant, and so free is that no person may be restricted or demeaned by government in exercising his or her religion.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
PART II

...But in recent years, an expanding government has made the Free Exercise Clause more important than ever. It was not long ago, for example, that the government told the Supreme Court it can prohibit a church from choosing its own minister; force religious business owners to buy pharmaceuticals they consider abortion inducing; and conscript nuns to provide birth control. Even after the Supreme Court vacated lower court decisions – by 9-0, 5-4, and 8-0 margins – the Free Exercise Clause remains a too often-tested bulwark against discrimination toward people of faith, from religious cakemakers to religious preschoolers. This state of affairs has severe implications for religious Americans, because “freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law.” But its importance extends beyond the liberty to worship. It threatens liberty of all kinds. That’s because, as de Tocqueville wrote, “religion, which among the Americans never directly takes part in the government of society, must be considered as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates use of it.”

That brings us to this case. “As we are all painfully aware, our nation faces a public health emergency caused by the exponential spread of COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.” Four days ago, defendant Mayor of Louisville Greg Fischer said it was “with a heavy heart” that he was banning religious services, even if congregants remain in their cars during the service. He asserted, “It’s not really practical or safe to accommodate drive-up services taking place in our community.” Drive-through restaurants and liquor stores are still open. Two days ago, on Holy Thursday, the Mayor threatened church members and pastors if they hold a drive-in Easter service: • “Ok so, if you are a church or you are a churchgoing member and you do that, you’re in violation of the mandate from the governor, you’re in violation of the request from my office and city government to not do that.” • “We’re saying no church worshiping, no drive-throughs.” ...

...Yesterday, on Good Friday, the Mayor’s threats continued: • “In order to save lives, we must not gather in churches, drive-through services, family gatherings, social gatherings this weekend.” • “If there are gatherings on Sunday, Louisville Metro Police Department will be there on Sunday handing out information detailing the health risks involved, and I have asked LMPD to record license plates of all vehicles in attendance.” • “We will share that information with our public health department, so they can follow up with the individuals that are out in church and gathering in groups, which is clearly a very, very unsafe practice.”

Today is Holy Saturday. Tomorrow is Easter Sunday. This is for Christians, as Mayor Fischer has said, “the holiest week of the year.” On Sunday, tomorrow, Plaintiff On Fire Christian Center wishes to hold an Easter service, as Christians have done for two thousand years. On Fire has planned a drive-in church service in accordance with the Center for Disease Control’s social distancing guidelines. Yesterday, near the close of business, On Fire filed this suit, including a request for a Temporary Restraining Order. It has asked the Court to stop defendants Mayor Greg Fischer and Metro Louisville from carrying out their plan to enforce their interpretation of the Governor’s social distancing order... On Fire has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits on its two Free Exercise claims and its Kentucky statutory claims...

“When faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the measures have at least some ‘real or substantial relation’ to the public health crisis and are not ‘beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.’” In this case, Louisville is violating the Free Exercise Clause “beyond all question.”

To begin, Louisville is substantially burdening On Fire’s sincerely held religious beliefs in a manner that is not “neutral” between religious and non-religious conduct, with orders and threats that are not “generally applicable” to both religious and non-religious conduct. “The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause...

Here, Louisville has targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services, while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-throughs – including, for example, drive-through liquor stores. Moreover, Louisville has not prohibited parking in parking lots more broadly – including, again, the parking lots of liquor stores. When Louisville prohibits religious activity while permitting non-religious activities, its choice “must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” ...But its actions violate the Free Exercise Clause “beyond all question” because they are not even close to being “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”

Louisville might suggest that On Fire members could participate in an online service and thus satisfy their longing for communal celebration. But some members may not have access to online resources. And even if they all did, the Free Exercise Clause protects their right to worship as their conscience commands them. It is not the role of a court to tell religious believers what is and isn’t important to their religion, so long as their belief in the religious importance is sincere. The Free Exercise clause protects sincerely held religious beliefs that are at times not “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.” ...

...Religion is not “some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room. For most believers, it is not that, and has never been.” Instead, just as many religions reinforce their faith and their bonds with the faithful through religious assemblies, many Christians take comfort and draw strength from Christ’s promise that “where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”...That promise is as important for the minister as for those ministered to, as vital to the shepherd as to the sheep...

...The brief history at the outset of this opinion does not even scratch the surface of religious liberty’s importance to our nation’s story, identity, and Constitution. But mindful of that importance, the Court believes there is a strong likelihood On Fire will prevail on the merits of its claim that Louisville may not ban its citizens from worshiping – or, in the relative safety of their cars, from worshiping together... Protecting religious freedom was a vital part of our nation’s founding, and it remains crucial today. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” For Christians, there is nothing minimal about celebrating Easter, the holiest day in the Christian calendar. And for the reasons explained above, the Court does not doubt that for them, an online substitute for an in-person, in-the-car celebration is no substitute at all... Nor is there any evidence that churches are less essential than every other business that is currently allowed to be open – liquor stores among them...

The Christians of On Fire, however, owe no one an explanation for why they will gather together this Easter Sunday to celebrate what they believe to be a miracle and a mystery. True, they can attempt to explain it. True, they can try to teach. But to the nonbeliever, the Passion of Jesus – the betrayals, the torture, the state-sponsored murder of God’s only Son, and the empty tomb on the third day – makes no sense at all. And even to the believer, or at least to some of them, it can be incomprehensible as well. But for the men and women of On Fire, Christ’s sacrifice isn’t about the logic of this world. Nor is their Easter Sunday celebration. The reason they will be there for each other and their Lord is the reason they believe He was and is there for us. For them, for all believers, “it isn’t a matter of reason; finally, it’s a matter of love.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Well, first of all, the novice that you quoted ascribed the Book of Hebrews to Paul. No reputable scholar believes that Book to be written by Paul.
Secondly, you prove nothing besides how misguided, fanatical and ritualistic a large part of the Christian community is. Is not being able to celebrate a non-ordained holiday, going to threaten one's standing with God?

Again, the holiday is not even prescribed by the Church, and you prefer to risk people's lives in order to honour this man-made tradition.
Plus, you'd rather defy the governing bodies, that were ordained by God, so that you pseudo-Christians can feel blessed.
And, one more time, Christ could not care in the least about this pagan holiday called Easter. How utterly weak, sensitive and misguided has the 'Church' become, that such a superficial observance defines their faith and status with God.
 
Last edited: