I don't think religious gatherings should be banned explicitly, just that the number of people sharing air indoors needs to be tightly regulated. With the protests, they're at least outdoors and the vast majority are wearing masks. If religious people can meet outdoors and wear masks in the same fashion, have at it.
That's generally the constitutional test- if you are generally regulating things and not singling out religions, you're ok.
Now if a particular practice is essential to that religion, you may have to show a compelling government interest in order to force the religion to comply.
The problem, of course, is that if the government is explicitly or even implicitly allowing flouting of those rules then the compelling government interest is null and void. Fig leafs like indoors vs outdoors isn't going to cut it.
As a person who attends organized religious services several times a week, I can sort of see why the right to protest the Government may take precedence over anything else. It's the one right you really can't touch even in an emergency.
That being said, I really appreciated being able to attend a minyan last Shabbos (outdoors, with restrictions).
In reality though protests are hardly like any other outdoor gathering. Thousands of people are crowded together for hours and shouting (which projects saliva). Anyone can clearly see it is a hotspot for coronavirus transmission. Authorities are allowing (peaceful) protest though because of free speech rights. The same freedoms are not extended to arguably lower risk religious gatherings.
Santa Clara county, which has had daily protests, just allowed outdoor-only religious gatherings of 25 people or less last week. They also opened indoor shopping malls in the same order. They’re clearly not treating religious expression like the fundamental constitutional right that it is. It is easy to find similar examples all over the state. When the coronavirus situation stabilizes, the lawyers are going to have a field day.
Can we maybe give those that are arrested during protests give the same rights that churchgoers enjoy? In church there is a good distance between families and service is quick, but police seem to enjoy locking protesters up in holding cells for far longer than necessary.
The proper comparison is between law-abiding protesters and law-abiding churchgoers.
Yeah, protesters that break the law, especially by committing serious acts of violence or property damage, can expect to spend quite a while in jail. Many would say not nearly long enough.
You are committing the same fallacy at Derek Chauvin, who got called to someone passing a possibly fake $20 bill and sat on the suspect's neck until he died. This isn't how it's supposed to work, everyone is supposed to get their day on court and get the lawful punishment.
Any protester who is arrested may or may not have caused property damage (most didn't move away when told to, I wonder how many will have their charges dropped), but there is no reason at all not to take name and address quickly and send them on their way.
But police seems to enjoy to inflict extrajudicial punishment, which is why no one likes them. They should be treated like Ronald Reagan treated aircraft controllers: fire them all and hire new ones to make a clean sheet.
The part you're missing is that protesters breaking the law are 100% aware of that fact and have the opportunity not to do so.
We have no idea of whether Floyd was aware of the fact that he was passing a fake $20, if indeed he even was. (I doubt I'd notice a fake $20.)
These two situations are not similar.
And if you have doubts about protesters causing serious property damage, aggravated assault, and manslaughter if not murder, I suggest you start looking at the many videos available on the web. There are a lot of truly horrible people out there, and they're having a field day right now.
The police can hold someone for 72 hours if there is probable cause, until the prosecution can put a case together. That said, you do ask how many people actually needed to be held because of suspicion of serious crime, and how many were held because the cops want to harass protesters and discourage protesting. Since everything is recorded by police anyway you do wonder why they keep anyone longer than necessary.
Anyone who mentions rioters and does not talk about police brutality needs to examine their motives carefully.
Talking about the few protest associates committing crimes while ignoring the police committing crimes and backing each other up while doing so shows that you are only invoking the law as a tool to harm those you disagree with.
Most of the rioting has been started by the police themselves, using this nonsensical wedge of a "curfew" to justify opening fire on peaceful crowds. When crowds are attacked by marching lines of thugs, it's no surprise that they will attempt to defend themselves, creating mayhem.
> Most of the rioting has been started by the police themselves
I reject that completely. If you riot, you choose to riot. The rioters I have seen shooting and stabbing people, and kicking them in the head while down are criminals. There is no passing of that buck.
> I reject that completely. If you riot, you choose to riot
How does this aphorism not apply to the police? When they open fire or march on a peaceful crowd, they are choosing to riot. If their goal was to prevent crime, they would deploy small units into the protest crowd to catch troublemakers directly.
> The rioters I have seen shooting and stabbing people, and kicking them in the head while down are criminals. There is no passing of that buck
Agreed for those specific people. But the vast majority that get arrested have done no such thing. Rather they started off peacefully protesting, and were then attacked by the police for exercising that right. If the arrestees were all that violent to begin with, there is no way they would have become so concentrated for so many to get arrested.
>> When they open fire or march on a peaceful crowd
> As far as I know, the last time that happened in the US was May 4, 1970. A terrible, terrible day.
There are plenty of videos and stories of police firing and marching on peaceful crowds during this round of protests, if you care to look. I don't know what your intent is with writing off five decades of protests, but bluntly ignoring this is counterproductive to any hope of mutual understanding.
I'll bite. When's the most recent incident of two or more police officers firing on peaceful crowds with live ammunition meant to kill, using handguns, rifles, or shotguns?
Adding qualifications to rule out current events is weaseling. Cops are shooting crowds with rubber bullets, gas canisters, and pepper balls, resulting in maiming and death. A non-cop doing the same thing would be on the hook for second degree murder.
Aside from the shooting I did also say marching, which is another way cops purposely escalate the situation and then claim they were just doing their job.
For what it's worth if someone had sad - "Please have service outside." I think everyone who goes to church would have been happy. That wasn't presented as an option. Frankly to me the idea seems more like after the fact rationalization.
24 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 53.4 ms ] threadNow if a particular practice is essential to that religion, you may have to show a compelling government interest in order to force the religion to comply.
The problem, of course, is that if the government is explicitly or even implicitly allowing flouting of those rules then the compelling government interest is null and void. Fig leafs like indoors vs outdoors isn't going to cut it.
That being said, I really appreciated being able to attend a minyan last Shabbos (outdoors, with restrictions).
Santa Clara county, which has had daily protests, just allowed outdoor-only religious gatherings of 25 people or less last week. They also opened indoor shopping malls in the same order. They’re clearly not treating religious expression like the fundamental constitutional right that it is. It is easy to find similar examples all over the state. When the coronavirus situation stabilizes, the lawyers are going to have a field day.
Yeah, protesters that break the law, especially by committing serious acts of violence or property damage, can expect to spend quite a while in jail. Many would say not nearly long enough.
Any protester who is arrested may or may not have caused property damage (most didn't move away when told to, I wonder how many will have their charges dropped), but there is no reason at all not to take name and address quickly and send them on their way.
But police seems to enjoy to inflict extrajudicial punishment, which is why no one likes them. They should be treated like Ronald Reagan treated aircraft controllers: fire them all and hire new ones to make a clean sheet.
Curfew breakers? Sure, they don't need to stay in jail. Arsonists? Those who physically assaulted others? Different story.
We have no idea of whether Floyd was aware of the fact that he was passing a fake $20, if indeed he even was. (I doubt I'd notice a fake $20.)
These two situations are not similar.
And if you have doubts about protesters causing serious property damage, aggravated assault, and manslaughter if not murder, I suggest you start looking at the many videos available on the web. There are a lot of truly horrible people out there, and they're having a field day right now.
Anyone who mentions rioters and does not talk about police brutality needs to examine their motives carefully.
Why? Does a rioter murdering someone somehow balance out a bad cop murdering someone? No. You just end up with twice as much awful.
Most of the rioting has been started by the police themselves, using this nonsensical wedge of a "curfew" to justify opening fire on peaceful crowds. When crowds are attacked by marching lines of thugs, it's no surprise that they will attempt to defend themselves, creating mayhem.
I reject that completely. If you riot, you choose to riot. The rioters I have seen shooting and stabbing people, and kicking them in the head while down are criminals. There is no passing of that buck.
How does this aphorism not apply to the police? When they open fire or march on a peaceful crowd, they are choosing to riot. If their goal was to prevent crime, they would deploy small units into the protest crowd to catch troublemakers directly.
> The rioters I have seen shooting and stabbing people, and kicking them in the head while down are criminals. There is no passing of that buck
Agreed for those specific people. But the vast majority that get arrested have done no such thing. Rather they started off peacefully protesting, and were then attacked by the police for exercising that right. If the arrestees were all that violent to begin with, there is no way they would have become so concentrated for so many to get arrested.
As far as I know, the last time that happened in the US was May 4, 1970. A terrible, terrible day.
> As far as I know, the last time that happened in the US was May 4, 1970. A terrible, terrible day.
There are plenty of videos and stories of police firing and marching on peaceful crowds during this round of protests, if you care to look. I don't know what your intent is with writing off five decades of protests, but bluntly ignoring this is counterproductive to any hope of mutual understanding.
Aside from the shooting I did also say marching, which is another way cops purposely escalate the situation and then claim they were just doing their job.
(What's up with throwing bicycles at horses? That's just mean.)
Are you referring to this?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/slashed-tires-protests/
> Law enforcement officers in Minnesota slashed the tires of cars parked near demonstrations against police brutality in May 2020.
> Rating: True