Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

Besides your opinion that he's wrong, do you have a source Case?

No I do not.

Did Brother Bernard quote case history?

My guess would be that there is no case history, as far as it going to the Supreme Court. That may change. My opinion is that it will never get that far. It is pretty obvious to me.

In my opinion.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

No I do not.

Did Brother Bernard quote case history?

My guess would be that there is no case history, as far as it going to the Supreme Court. That may change. My opinion is that it will never get that far. It is pretty obvious to me.

In my opinion.

No, he cited what he learned from Constitutional law. I asked because I'm interested in whether there is or not.

""As a matter of US constitutional law (which I studied in law school), the government does have the right to enact measures for health and safety. Thus, churches must follow building, fire, and health codes. Governments routinely shut down meetings, including church services, that violate these safety regulations. It can't discriminate against churches, and it must use the least restrictive means possible.""

Is any of this false or incorrect?

Has it ever been challenged? I haven't found any challenges yet. If these measures remain in effect or continue to be extended again and again, there may be some more churches who begin to defy and challenge these state executive orders.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

No, he cited what he learned from Constitutional law. I asked because I'm interested in whether there is or not.

""As a matter of US constitutional law (which I studied in law school), the government does have the right to enact measures for health and safety. Thus, churches must follow building, fire, and health codes. Governments routinely shut down meetings, including church services, that violate these safety regulations. It can't discriminate against churches, and it must use the least restrictive means possible.""

Is any of this false or incorrect?

Has it ever been challenged? I haven't found any challenges yet. If these measures remain in effect or continue to be extended again and again, there may be some more churches who begin to defy and challenge these state executive orders.

Did you watch the video?

[Ehud]

Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Citation: 98 US 145 (1879)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/98us145

This case said a religious duty or belief isn't a defense to a criminal charge, and spelled out that Congress can't deprive one of opinion, but can regulate actions. So unless someone has a legitimate case for this restriction being religiously-discriminatory, I'm not sure what footing Rev. Spell has. Just my opinion, of course.

"Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Yes you did. My point is that someone having a legal opinion is not much different than having an opinion on the weather. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate in our country. There are normally two opinions written, the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion (providing the opinion is not unanimous).

Do you know of Trey Gowdy?

Here’s his opinion on religious liberty, in general.

https://youtu.be/DmpoYb-hA1s

Originally Posted by Ehud

Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Citation: 98 US 145 (1879)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/98us145

This case said a religious duty or belief isn't a defense to a criminal charge, and spelled out that Congress can't deprive one of opinion, but can regulate actions. So unless someone has a legitimate case for this restriction being religiously-discriminatory, I'm not sure what footing Rev. Spell has. Just my opinion, of course.

"Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

Did you watch the video I linked?

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Did you watch the video I linked?

Yes, I did, but I haven’t had time to look up all the cases he referenced.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Yes you did. My point is that someone having a legal opinion is not much different than having an opinion on the weather. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate in our country. There are normally two opinions written, the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion (providing the opinion is not unanimous).

Do you know of Trey Gowdy?

Here’s his opinion on religious liberty, in general.

https://youtu.be/DmpoYb-hA1s

Yes, I know Trey Gowdy. He was the premier lawmaker who couldn’t get an indictment for Hillary who beat the devil out of her computers after she bleached them.

[Nicodemus1968]

Coming into this conversation late so please forgive me.

Obviously from what I read, some are for Bro. Spell, and some are against what he has chosen to do. We all have our opinion, I have mine and just like socks after a couple days they start to stink.

One questions that comes to my mind as I read some of your posts is, what persecution is the church under? What’s the cause for a Pastor to continue to have church as we know it and then have to be greeted by officers of the law?

If the stay at home order is persecution against the church, then its also persecution against sporting events, concerts, malls, bank lobbies, some government buildings etc.

Ive seen that Trey Gowdy video years ago and one thing he mentioned that I agree with is Balance we have got to have balance. I believe its offense to the early Church to consider this as persecution.

This is my opinion:
If the government is telling us not to get in groups above 10, then don't do it. The church should be flexible in times like this, offer to be a cell leader for a small group. There are many ways to have church without the building and without everyone together.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Coming into this conversation late so please forgive me.

Obviously from what I read, some are for Bro. Spell, and some are against what he has chosen to do. We all have our opinion, I have mine and just like socks after a couple days they start to stink.

One questions that comes to my mind as I read some of your posts is, what persecution is the church under? What’s the cause for a Pastor to continue to have church as we know it and then have to be greeted by officers of the law?

If the stay at home order is persecution against the church, then its also persecution against sporting events, concerts, malls, bank lobbies, some government buildings etc.

Ive seen that Trey Gowdy video years ago and one thing he mentioned that I agree with is Balance we have got to have balance. I believe its offense to the early Church to consider this as persecution.

This is my opinion:
If the government is telling us not to get in groups above 10, then don't do it. The church should be flexible in times like this, offer to be a cell leader for a small group. There are many ways to have church without the building and without everyone together.

Well brother. It is not a matter of persecution of the church. It is a matter of separation of church and state. If the church is a building, obviously the state has authority over it (fire codes, plumbing and electrical). However, the church is not a building, it is a people. And if there is a separation of church and state, the state has no authority to tell the church whether or not they can assemble. They have authority over the building, but not the people.

As for the pastor; How can they prosecute the pastor for what I did? That will never stick, in my opinion.

It seems from a legal standpoint, they would have to prosecute the members individually.

For instance, if the law is against assemblies over fifty, the law would only be violated by fifty one and up. If the pastor was there first, how do you prosecute him? It seems to be full of holes to me, legally.

Otherwise? I believe it would be best to use a little un-common sense. Stay home and worship there. But I’m going to be surprised, if not shocked if any of these charges are successfully prosecuted.

[diakonos]