There are God-Ordained Inalienable Rights that no man-made
law authority over. Even so, the U.S. Constitution affirms Religious Liberty in
the First Amendment. Now that the Supreme Court appears to join Dem-Marxists
dedicated to ignoring God-Given and First Amendment memorialized Religious
Liberty, I’m beginning to wonder why Christians would abide by Godless judicial
impositions of law.
JRH 8/3/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit,
check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal
account:
Or support by getting in
the Coffee from home business –
OR just buy some
FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.
*******************************
Black Robed Tyranny Lives
Religious Liberty: Some Things Are Self-Evident - A
Violation of the First Freedom
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 8/1/2020 11:05 PM
Religious freedom and liberty is the First Freedom and an
Inalienable Right granted all by God, enumerated in the Bill of Rights and
sacrosanct, but somehow Chief Justice John Roberts, who is supposedly a
conservative, barely bats an eye in casting the deciding vote for a ruling and
a violation of this right, by which all others flow.
On July 24th 2020, [JOS]Roberts joined the four leftist Justices of the Supreme Court
to deny the petition brought before the Court, to give Calvary Chapel in Dayton
Valley, Nevada relief from Governor Steve Sisolak's illegitimate and
unconstitutional order, that limited attendance for
the congregation to only 50 at a time -- supposedly over Covid-19 concerns -- despite allowing Nevada's casinos to operate with hundreds of
people flowing through its rooms and gaming arenas. And
taken in total, this case actually represents one of the most blatant and overt
attacks against Christianity and the Church that any American has witnessed in
the course of American history, no matter the weak attempts to justify it by
the weak, simpering backstabbing Chief Justice, who once again betrays his oath
to the Constitution and America and dares to suggest he is upholding any rule
of law.
The five justices handed out the majority 5-4 ruling in
favor of Governor Sisolak and Nevada, and they chose not to write any opinion
to explain their decision, probably due to the surreal nature any such
explanation would hold in any attempt to defend the indefensible. However, it
actually isn't all that unusual, but their decision did draw three sharp dissents from the Court's four conservative
Justices.
Shortly after the ruling was revealed, Senator Ted Cruz
(R-TX) exclaimed: "John Roberts has abandoned his oath."
In his own criticism of Roberts, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
stated: "Justice Roberts once again got it wrong, shamefully closing
church doors to their flocks."
Even the Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal was left
scratching its head on this one, since a normally reliable SCOTUS on matters of
religious freedom was now missing in action. Liberal reporters too were baffled
and had trouble explaining how Nevada's churches could mount so strong a
challenge to Sisolak's illegitimate order and still lose.
Roberts acted in the same anti-First Amendment manner on
May 29th 2020, when he also sided with the four Communist Horsemen of the
Supreme Court to deny South Bay Pentecostal Church relief from Gov. Gavin
Newsom's illegal order, that held it to a different and
more onerous standard than California's similar secular businesses. His
decision there and most recently with Cavalry Chapel were both wrong-headed and
in absolute contravention of any moral interpretation of the Constitution and
the law.
Some things are self-evident, as noted often by America's
Founders, and nothing should be more self-evident than one's right to worship
in a house of worship when and where one chooses, without the heavy hand of
government interfering. This is especially important to both Christians and
Jews as we find in Hebrews 10: 22-27 of the King James Bible, that reads:
"Let us draw near with a
true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the
profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful that promised; And
let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; Not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but
exhorting one another: and so much more, as ye see the day approaching. For if
we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of
judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
Inalienable rights cannot be superseded or abrogated by
any executive order, state legislation or federal order, since they pre-exist
government and the Constitution, and any agreement to abide temporarily by
any such order is only moral in a fair application across the board. In other
words, what's good for factories in California and casinos in Nevada is good
for the Church. But that is not what we have witnessed.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw the Calvary Chapel case as
straightforward, in his dissent, writing:
"Nevada's 50-person
attendance cap on religious worship service puts praying at churches,
synagogues, temples and mosques on worse footing than eating at restaurants,
drinking at bars, gambling at casinos or biking at gyms. In other words, Nevada
is discriminating against religion.
Rightfully so, lawyers for
Calvary Chapel contended that Governor Sisolak's order discriminated against
churches and violated the First Amendment, writing in their brief: "This
is a straightforward case. If the governor deems it acceptable for secular
assemblies to occur at 50 percent capacity at casinos, restaurants, bars, gyms
and fitness facilities, indoor and outdoor parks, bowling alleys, water parks,
pools, arcades and more, he must apply the same 50 percent capacity rule to
constitutionally protected worship services."
[JOS]In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito,
one of the finest minds still on the Court, wrote:
"That Nevada would
discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not
come as a surprise, but this Court's willingness to allow such discrimination
is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution and even a public
health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility. It says nothing
about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot
machine or to engage in any other game of chance."
The executive order is so unbelievably biased against
churches, that Governor Steve Sisolak reveals himself to be one of the most
obscene and disgraceful faces of "the Government" and Big Brother.
His order goes beyond the pale in its blatant disregard for the Church's rights
and its honest approach to worshiping in a responsible fashion. And so too does
Chief Justice John Robert's affirmation of Sisolak's evil.
All the Church had asked was for the Governor to allow 90
parishioners rather than 50, in a church that holds 200. So, America bears
witness to a mentally maladjusted, intellectual midget who is willing to allow
thousands of people to pursue the hopes of fleeting riches through the inequities
of gambling, while cracking the government whip on the Church for seeking to
bring more of their brethren into their building in pursuit of a closer
relationship to God.
In one sentence, Justice Alito nails the crux of the matter:
"The idea that allowing
Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshipers present a greater public health risk than
allowing casinos to operate at 50 percent capacity is hard to swallow, and the
State's efforts to justify the discrimination are feeble."
During the course of the case, it was discovered that the
Governor chose to disregard previous violations of his order by large masses of
protesters. Not only did Gov. Sisolak not enforce his own directive, he
actually supported and participated in at least one such protest, whereupon he
shared a video of the protesters standing shoulder to shoulder. However, upon
hearing that some churches might disregard the order, the State's response from the attorney general
came in part with a declarative statement that,
"You can't spit ... in the face of law and not expect law to
respond."
What hypocrites. What anti-American hypocritical
tyrants.
Of course all peaceful protests are protected too, by the
First Amendment, but they are not any more important than Calvary Church's
Freedom of religion, and the State cannot favor one over another, since such a
bias is anathema to the First Amendment, regardless of any imprimatur the
Governor has given one in preference over the other. And it is still
unconstitutional. [Blog Editor: Peaceful Protest is indeed a First Amendment
Right BUT – rioting, looting, vandalism and other acts of violence are not First Amendment protected AND is NOT
peaceful. Justin knows that, I just felt the need to
reiterate it:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]
And Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with Alito, writing:
"In Nevada, it seems, it
is better to be in entertainment than religion. ... Maybe that is nothing new.
But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the
exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with the pandemic upon us,
poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution
permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel."
Is it any wonder that America finds Herself in such dire
straits, with Satan and the Enemy standing at Her gates? -- Disguised in
many deceptive garbs and speaking many soothing, pleasing and beguiling
manners.
Of some interest, Chief Justice Robert's did somewhat
explain his reasoning in his South Bay ruling, that may shed some light to his
decision on Calvary Chapel. Unlike his associate Republican Justices, he tends
to defer to democratically accountable officials during a public health crisis,
and suggests the Court on the whole should also. However, one must note, from
his rulings records, Roberts's deference to "the politically accountable
officials does not always move in favor of public health, or even democracy, as
understood through the prism of republican governance, for that matter.
Roberts's justification is lame as anything we will read
this decade, and just as he had to jump through linguistic hoops to discover
that Obamacare was a "tax" rather than an unconstitutional penalty,
he has had to delve into a whole new Alice In Wonderland delusional alternative
universe to negate and disregard the fundamental, inherent truth of the
inalienable quality of our religious liberty, the First Freedom. His actions
are inexcusable and unconscionable beyond anything any true American should
ever hope to never see again.
The majority's decision was worse than if they had simply
set the case aside, since their ruling is tantamount to endorsing
discrimination against the Church, pure and simple. In an unconscionable
manner, this Court is failing in its constitutional responsibilities, and
without rhyme or reason, their rulings have taken on an imperial tone, that is
both dangerous and antithetical to the rule of law. And this Supreme Court is
as close to Black Robed tyrants as America has ever seen, to date.
Chief Justice John Roberts has aligned himself with the
adversaries of the very virtues, principles and righteous endeavors that stand
between man's freedom and tyranny, and still some attempt to hold him as a fine
example of judiciary prudence. They excuse him in what they view as his attempt
to prevent the American public from seeing the Court as a politicized body
comprised of four Democrats and five Republicans, even though essentially
that's precisely what it is. And regardless of his intent, whether he is a
purposeful closet liberal intent on advancing certain Marxist agendas, i.e.
Obamacare, abortion and the deviant LGBTQ agenda, and seeks to be loved by
Leftist America or he simply seeks to align the Court with the prevailing
public opinion of the day, Chief Justice John Roberts is still ruling in ways,
especially of late, that will have long reaching and long-lasting effects on
America and undermine the rule of law, having the exact opposite effect he
seeks, as all Americans who value truth and reality grow to see him as the
betrayer of both.
And whenever any elected official holds before the people a
"law" that is a malformed, cheap, imitation of anything remotely
adhering to our founding principles, and it violates our Inalienable Rights in
so egregious a manner as this, as un-Christian as it may seem to many, my
own first initial response is to, in fact, spit square in the face of said
"law" that is no law at all and fill the Church 'til its doors and
windows pulsate with the Spirit of the Lord.
By Justin O. Smith
______________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text enclosed by brackets, bold
text indicates agreement with Justin and embedded links except where
indicated by “JOS” are by Editor.
© Justin O. Smith
