New York Mayor Bill De Blasio threatens to fine and, if necessary, shut down churches and synagogues which ignore orders to avoid social gathering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Is this an egregious attack on our First Amendment freedom guarantees, or are people of faith putting their own traditions before the public health?
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members — a team that grows daily with folks who love liberty and see the value of civil dialogue to reach those who don’t yet embrace foundational principles. Join the team and unlock exclusive content.
24 replies on “Mayor De Blasio Threatens to Shut Down Churches which Flout Social Gathering Rules”
I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Bill’s point of view. A point that seems to be overlooked is that “essential businesses” in Florida are still allowed to operate. There are no government enforced restrictions in any “essential” retail establishment that I am aware of. This is an overt effort to silence the church. The following is a quote from a post by a well respected Christian leader that explains why so many are disturbed by mandated closures:
“Why do people so easily think that churches should close but places like Home Depot, Lowe’s and Hobby Lobby should stay open? Churches have a First Amendment right to exist and assemble, but the commercial businesses do not. The Home Depots in Hillsborough County look like they’re giving out free merchandise. They’re packed with people. Truckloads are arriving to deliver such “essential items” as potted plants. There is no six-foot separation and there is no special effort at all to keep people safe. Yet, The River at Tampa Bay Church spent $100,000 on special equipment and enforced a six-foot separation throughout the sanctuary and lobby.
Why is it the church can’t meet when it has a constitutional right to do so and has undertaken extraordinary efforts to protect people, but commercial businesses can meet with no constitutional protections and many do nothing to protect anyone? People need to think more rationally and critically before they come to a knee-jerk reaction that churches should not meet. This is the United States of America, and we have a First Amendment for a reason. It’s not an either/or – that the church should or should not meet. In America, churches have a constitutional right to meet, and in so doing, they can take precautions to protect people.”
You know exactly where Bill DeBlasio’s rights end: PRIMA NOCTA.
I would like you to explain that Freudian slip of yours Scott and kindly tell us what you mean by, “More important churches.”
Furthermore. You might be quite comfortable staying at home on the Lord’s day, but unlike protestants, we Catholics NEED to be PHYSICALLY present to receive the Eucharist. We need a consecrated apostolic priest for the sacrament of confession, marriage, baptism, and last rites, which many hospitals are forbidding. Even though some priests have respected social distance regulations, they are still asked to desist in their attempts to offer the things we need.
We have the right to liberty and happiness, just like the liberal left movements, and these very things which are refused, we see as our very life.
If it wasn’t for the dispensations and our obedience to our bishops, If they opened the doors of the Church, I would be there.
The problem with the coercion is how smoothly the authorities seem to be sliding into it, how comfortable they seem to be with it and how enthusiastically some of those tasked with enforcement are carrying out their duties. While we’re assured that “they don’t want” to use these new powers the evidence does not support this. We had Derbyshire police positively boasting on their twitter account of issuing six summonses overnight and there have been other reports of zealous enforcement and personal interpretation of the rules.
I do think both the UK and US are phenomenally lucky that this has hit while we have the leaders we have now. Just think what Obama, Hillary or Corbyn might have done with this. Nevertheless, the bureaucratic establishments would seem to be lovin’ it. As in the US, doubts are being expressed here. The political traditions of the English speaking peoples do not sit easily with even “emergency” state powers of the sort we’re seeing and people are watching carefully how these powers are being used.
It’s very hard, here in the UK, to not think dark thoughts when you’re told under what circumstances you may leave your home, and the police are used to enforce this, while flights from around the world are still coming into Heathrow and folk are getting off those flights unchecked. It doesn’t quite add up. I’m glad Bill, Scott and Steve are here to help hold the dunghill roosters to account.
Here are a couple of videos by the Sun, who (at the moment) are toeing the line and clearly think “people should do as they’re told”. I predict this may change if an editor gets stopped by a stroppy copper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTg3pMd11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu4GWu3cMec
Well, I did it again… did not view the entire segment before making my last comment… so, I (as a Sheriff) am as passionate about the US Constitution and the Nebraska Constitution as Bill is… I felt his emotion…Each time I have been elected to the Office of Sheriff, I swore an oath to defend both and I always will defend them to the best of my ability.. The only way constitutional rights can be suspended is with a declaration of Marshal Law… this can even suspend Habeas corpus…. I have not heard of this happening at the federal or state level, so our rights as protected by the constitution are still to be observed and protected. As a Sheriff I will tell you that I will “Never” knowingly be complicit in stepping over either constitution. I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my point… Let the Church services continue (especially if he is a nut because they are the ones who need the greatest protection – being a nut) — God bless you all……
The only issue I have with Bill on this is the Frat Party…. 1st amend.. peaceably assemble…. never been to a kegger frat party that was peaceable, therefore shutting it down (in my opinion) is not a constitutional issue…. Mayor Bill D. is a megalomaniac with dillusions of grandeur… Maybe he should have visited with the leaders of those churches and synagogues and tried to get them to volunteer to suspend services…. show them that he is not a political bully… He can’t do it.. he’s a progressive.. biggest bullies on earth…. just sayin’
Bill is correct, if leaders like DeBlasio are allowed to get away with forcefully breaking up these congregations and beyond that, shutting down churches and synagogues, it will not stop there. He will get braver in his power and abuse it more. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t New York City allow their government to take their guns away? If so, would DeBlasio be so brave if they still had them? Just a thought to put out there.
Excellent debate Scott and Bill on a abstruse subject that is a challenge to convey the importance of.
Regardless of hypothetical scenarios, Bill’s fundamental Constitutional position remains correct. There are good reasons to ASK people to behave in a logical way to limit the speed of the virus’ infections. It is proper that people consider the government’s wishes to diminish concentrations of people.
The threat by Mayor de Blasio of “potentially closing the building permanently” ends all other arguments other than the foundational Constitutional recognition of rights. Once a governmental body believes that it has the authority under an emergency event to threaten a place of worship with permanent closure, it will believe it can use that authority under ANY event. This is over the line, and must not be tolerated. It is as simple as that, and discussion of public health is rendered entirely moot in comparison.
This nation is founded on Liberty; any and every threat against that Liberty must be fought and destroyed. The Mayor declared war against faith, though he doesn’t see it that way. His vision must be corrected.
~ Freelancer
I keep hearing CHURCHES and SYNAGOGUES but what about MOSQUES? are they exempt as nobody wants to create a problem?
Bill, you’re on slippery ground because you’re not addressing the more import point: JURISDICTION. Remember what the Bible says in Matthew 6:24, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Most churches have abdicated their constitutional protections by bending the knee to the state through incorporation. They are now under the state’s laws because they signed a contract (i.e. articles of incorporation) creating an artificial person (i.e. Church, Inc.) which gives the state JURISDICTION, binding that organization to comply with the laws of the state. If the state passes an edict banning assembly, members of the organization can be hauled in front of the court for violating the edict because they are now a state church. Only churches that have not incorporated are protected by the First Amendment. The Church has sold its birthright for a bowl of gruel. Remember what Baron de Montesquieu once wrote: “A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties. (The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748))”
I like Bill’s analogy of the country’s “immune response” being activated by these onerous threats. Unfortunately, the country’s immune system, the Church, has been compromised for generations. America’s weakened immune system from tyranny may not be strong enough to fight off this infection, which will result in the fall of the Constitution into totalitarianism. It’s too bad these threats have cowed the churches into compliance.
Read the book “In Caesar’s Grip” for a better understanding.
The state might have “jurisdiction” (not sure if I agree with your analysis, but I’m willing to grant the premise for the sake of the argument), but it doesn’t follow that whatever laws, decrees, or emergency orders the state issues are therefore constitutional. They’re not: the courts overturn unconstitutional laws created by states all the time. Apples and oranges.
Thanks for commenting. Your right; I’m alone on this or any other forum with these views. You wrote, “the courts overturn unconstitutional laws created by states all the time.” Now compare your words to some of Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist 78:
“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Does that sound like the power to overturn? How about this quote?
“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.”
To say today that “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power”, is to deny the self-evident truth that the courts have usurped power over the other two branches and are uncontestably the most powerful branch. All you need is a rouge legislature to pass bad laws that the courts can rule constitutional, or, pass a good law that delusionals hate that the courts can rule unconstitutional, as in the case of Roe v. Wade.
So it is with church incorporation. If the courts were not compromised, they would have ruled against any church attempting to become a creature of the state. When a Board of Directors of a church file articles of incorporation with a state they have entered into a binding contract between two parties, in this case, the state is the creator and the church is the creation. The church now has a split personality; one half of its personality is seemingly protected by the First Amendment; the other half is now an artificial person under the jurisdiction of the state. But the state does not recognize the “free church” but now holds the artificial church in its grip. Any assets listed in the articles of incorporation are now encumbered under the state’s jurisdiction. Up until now, the states have been very generous with their favors by not taxing church property. There are now powers and principalities afoot seeking to remove those favors. LBJ introduced legislation that prohibited churches from engaging in political activities. Early in our nation’s history, preachers regularly gave sermons on political topics.
The taxes and restrictions do kinda go hand in hand. If a church wanted to hold a political rally it might lose its tax exempt status, but wouldn’t lose the rights to worship or assemble. Most skilled preachers are more than able to promote the values of their faith and any congregant who knows anything about the candidates would know who is spoken for, or against.
What makes a church different from a major sports team or concert hall, legally? Both have large numbers of people that gather at announced and pre-arranged times for a public invited event. The general practice to not charge a ticket price at the door (and tong in cheeck) only collect the money part way through is the major difference. I don’t think the incorporation really has anything to do with the ability to worship but is more of a legal standing status.
If the Mayor actually says to a group of people that they cannot worship according to their religion or attempts to take by fiat privately owned property he’ll have egg on his face and a huge legal battle. He might even get the ACLU to side with churches, though if they don’t that would be due more to their spineless promotion of leftists causes and less about the civil liberties at stake.
You are right to quote the Federalist Papers, but they do not hold the force of law. Arguing that Marbury v. Madison was an unconstitutional decision is academic in the strict sense of the word: the reality is that the courts have functioned as a check on the federal (and later states) making unconstitutional laws for almost the entire existence of our nation.
Even so, it is correct to say that the courts have no power of enforcement of their decisions. They depend entirely upon the willingness of the parties (or the people) to submit their decisions, or upon the executive branch to enforce them. This is true at every level of government, not just federal. But to conclude that because the judiciary has no paramilitary enforcement arm of its own, they have no power or authority to make decisions, is a suggestion I don’t think the authors of the Federalist Papers would endorse. Indeed, I believe the entire point of the discussion of the weakness of the judiciary, and its reliance on the other branches for enforcement and compliance, was put forth in support of the idea that the other two branches must support and comply with the judiciary’s decisions, or the judiciary would be unable to function.
In other words, the other two branches must willingly submit to the courts, and give up some of their own power to them, to make the government work.
I am sympathetic, philosophically, to arguments against judicial supremacy (Josh Hammer’s writings have, most recently, been influential on my thinking). In an ideal world, I might even consider voting for a consitutional amendment to put the judiciary back into its pre-Marbury box. But overall, even though our current system is subject to abuse by activist judges, I think it’s a better system than the pre-Marbury one.
I was jumping up and down agreeing with you Bill! Well stated. On a side note, Harry & Meghan moved to LA, so, you are in charge of them now!
If this stands, what’s to stop a government at any level from declaring a public health emergency for “gun violence”? Then they can suspend your constitutional rights and confiscate your firearms. Over half the country is disarmed already; why won’t you follow suit? If it saves just one life…
This is why I subscribe. In fact, I wish there was a Mr. Virtual President episode on this!
(By the way, my two teenage daughters now watch your stuff regularly! Many sincere Thanks!)
I understand the role Scott plays in these discussions but I ended up getting angry during this episode in spite of that knowledge. Those were some good arguments – rather, they sound good if you don’t have a firm understanding that the Constitution limits government. If you have any lingering ideas that the Constitution gives us rights then you can easily begin to think “just this one time” or “these circumstances” allow government officials at any level to override those freedoms.
Very scary.
Scott was channeling some serious Cathy Newman here. “So what you’re saying is…” You just want to reach through the screen and throttle him with your lobster claws sometimes. But that’s exactly the kind of arguments we’re going to face on this.
What’s shocking is that Krazy Kommie was able to say such a thing apparently not realizing how shocking it was. And where was the press gaggle and the shouted questions that seem to accompany the President ‘s every utterance?
However as usual with the Overton Window the left has placed the hereto for unthinkable on the table for discussion and eventual compromise.
Bill,
Your antibody metaphor is excellent! I’m gonna use that.
No stories at all in the mainstream media? You’d expect at least a “the right-wing religious crazies are saying x, we contacted the mayor to clarify that he meant y”. No clarifying press releases from the mayor’s office? Nope, he said permanently and he meant permanently despite any attempt to waffle his statement into something softer..
To claim De Blasio to be a nuanced politician is like saying an elephant is as graceful as a ballerina. It’s a crock of $#!^. Any governmental infringement upon our Bill of Rights is unacceptable and a justification for revolt. Our American forebears were both statesmen and violent when necessary.