OT: Mega-church pastor arrested in Florida for Holding services

[paladin181]

Source (USA Today)
Rodney Howard-Browne was arrested for "Unlawful assembly."

I'm so glad this happened.

This is the First amendment (the UNALIENABLE right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion) being trampled on by local authorities saying that a CHURCH who was PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING on their OWN PROPERTY was in violation of a government law and arrested the leader of the church. I do not approve of Mr. Howard-Browne, but I certainly hope his lawyers smack the ever loving shit out of the government in Florida for their unlawful orders in the face of a crisis. We can not give over our God given rights to the government out of fear. You can choose to live in fear or choose not to live in fear, but you cannot choose for others how they will live.

EDIT: As much as I despise churches like this and people like Howard-Browne, I fully support his and his congregation's first amendment rights. While I also feel they were wrong to be congregating, it is their God-given right to do so and no Government agency has the right to take that away. So Shame on him for not being a better leader, but thanks to him as well for leading this charge for rights, even if it was for selfish reasons. In the end his case will have huge ramifications if he fights it all the way up.

 

[funktavious]

That would be true if it only affected the members of the church. All it takes is for one member to pass it to others in the church. This is where it can affect those outside of the church. Those members who were infected inside the church then go out and infect people not involved in the church. Its completely selfish of them to put others at risk. If he wants to hold service then he can set up a live feed over the internet but I'm sure he doesn't want to do that because he can't pass around the collection plate which is all he really cares about.

 

[Rollerdude123]

Churches, like the one I attend, are free to gather as a group online. my son’s youth group gathered last night, online. He told me they’ve gathered together more online than they ever would in person.

With technology, there is no excuse for a church not to assemble together- but in a way that protects their neighbors.

Rodney Howard Browne is a prosperity gospel promoter like Trump’s “spiritual adviser” - Paula White.

 

[paladin181]

That would be true if it only affected the members of the church. All it takes is for one member to pass it to others in the church. This is where it can affect those outside of the church. Those members who were infected inside the church then go out and infect people not involved in the church. Its completely selfish of them to put others at risk. If he wants to hold service then he can set up a live feed over the internet but I'm sure he doesn't want to do that because he can't pass around the collection plate which is all he really cares about.

I agree. I'm only glad that this is happening for the possible case law it can spawn, and I certainly hope it does. As I stated above, I don't like churches in general for corruption throughout the organizations.But I trust the Government less and hope that Rodney wins this one because it does affect everyone. If he was responsible as a leader, then this couldn't have happened.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

There is the right to free assembly, and then there are laws for unlawful assembly.
In this case he violated the unlawful assembly law, and violated a county order of gatherings be held to fewer than 10 people.
If pressed it would not be beyond the scope of labeling his behavior as "reckless endangerment", also punishable by law.

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT LEGAL DEFINITON:
Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.

 

[Flameout12]

There is the right to free assembly, and then there are laws for unlawful assembly.
In this case he violated the unlawful assembly law, and violated a county order of gatherings be held to fewer than 10 people.
If pressed it would not be beyond the scope of labeling his behavior as "reckless endangerment", also punishable by law.

Yep...it's all in the wording of the law and local ordinances.
Same can be said for some forms of gun control or ordinances against teens gathering in areas where trouble happens.

 

[sgacock]

There is the right to free assembly, and then there are laws for unlawful assembly.
In this case he violated the unlawful assembly law, and violated a county order of gatherings be held to fewer than 10 people.
If pressed it would not be beyond the scope of labeling his behavior as "reckless endangerment", also punishable by law.

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT LEGAL DEFINITON:
Endangerment is a type of crime involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.

The Constitution overrides every law. It is the supreme law of the land.

He will plead not guilty and will never be prosecuted. The local DA knows that a local "illegal gathering" law cannot override the First Amendment.

the pastor and church will sue. I hope they win - ONE DOLLAR ($1.00).

I support their right. I do not support their decision to push that right.

 

[JDishnell]

You shouldn't go to church, but you can go to the grocery store/walmart as many times a day as you want.

 

[HI Cock]

I agree. I'm only glad that this is happening for the possible case law it can spawn, and I certainly hope it does. As I stated above, I don't like churches in general for corruption throughout the organizations.But I trust the Government less and hope that Rodney wins this one because it does affect everyone. If he was responsible as a leader, then this couldn't have happened.

If people can't see the unprecedented circumstances that the entire world is in right now, they need to open their eyes. Proving a point right now is not only unconscionable, it's unethical and immoral. Any court should be able to see through that.

 

[carolinakg]

Source (USA Today)
Rodney Howard-Browne was arrested for "Unlawful assembly."

I'm so glad this happened.

This is the First amendment (the UNALIENABLE right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion) being trampled on by local authorities saying that a CHURCH who was PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING on their OWN PROPERTY was in violation of a government law and arrested the leader of the church. I do not approve of Mr. Howard-Browne, but I certainly hope his lawyers smack the ever loving shit out of the government in Florida for their unlawful orders in the face of a crisis. We can not give over our God given rights to the government out of fear. You can choose to live in fear or choose not to live in fear, but you cannot choose for others how they will live.

EDIT: As much as I despise churches like this and people like Howard-Browne, I fully support his and his congregation's first amendment rights. While I also feel they were wrong to be congregating, it is their God-given right to do so and no Government agency has the right to take that away. So Shame on him for not being a better leader, but thanks to him as well for leading this charge for rights, even if it was for selfish reasons. In the end his case will have huge ramifications if he fights it all the way up.

There is an overriding compelling governmental interest here, IMHO: the protection and safety of community members’ health.

 

[carolinakg]

The Constitution overrides every law. It is the supreme law of the land.

He will plead not guilty and will never be prosecuted. The local DA knows that a local "illegal gathering" law cannot override the First Amendment.

the pastor and church will sue. I hope they win - ONE DOLLAR ($1.00).

I support their right. I do not support their decision to push that right.

Uh...actually, no. There are instances where there are overriding governmental interests involved. Here there is a compelling interest not to have this virus spread throughout the community.

You’ve got Constitutional rights, but depending on circumstances, time, place, you may have consequences if you choose to exercise those. For example, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, when there’s no fire; or calling your boss a Motherf*****.

 

[Flameout12]

The Constitution overrides every law. It is the supreme law of the land.

Be sure to remind Donald Trump of that law....he's the one that just sent every household a card that states people are to avoid social gatherings of 10+.

 

[Rollerdude123]

The Constitution overrides every law. It is the supreme law of the land.

He will plead not guilty and will never be prosecuted. The local DA knows that a local "illegal gathering" law cannot override the First Amendment.

the pastor and church will sue. I hope they win - ONE DOLLAR ($1.00).

I support their right. I do not support their decision to push that right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia led the Court in upholding Oregon's power to deny public benefits to two individuals who broke the state's drug laws when they used peyote for sacramental purposes as part of a Native American Church ceremony. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate," Scalia wrote. In other words, it would be one thing if the state specifically banned the use of peyote for religious purposes. But here the state banned its use for all purposes and thus placed no particular burden on religious users. A "generally applicable" law of that sort, Scalia argued, does not qualify as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.

Here's what that means in the present context: The traditional police powers of the states include the power to combat the spread of infectious diseases via quarantines and related health measures (though these powers are not unlimited). Bans on large gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 would likely fit that bill, at least in the short term. They would also likely fit the bill of "general applicability" as spelled out by Justice Scalia. Such bans apply to society at large and do not single out religious gatherings for closure. They would therefore likely pass muster under Employment Division v. Smith. https://reason.com/2020/03/20/these...stitution-protect-their-right-to-remain-open/

 

[paladin181]

when there’s no fire; or calling your boss a Motherf*****.

Unless your boss is a government official, the punishment meted out has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

If people can't see the unprecedented circumstances that the entire world is in right now, they need to open their eyes. Proving a point right now is not only unconscionable, it's unethical and immoral. Any court should be able to see through that.

It's not proving a point. It is standing up to a government that is taking rights away from people on the basis of fear. Rights were made for PRECISELY the moments when it is most inconvenient for the government to recognize them. Why is everyone so OK with governments stretching far beyond the general provisions in order to enforce illegal suppression of freedom? Again, this is how dictatorships begin, by the government seizing power when it is convenient and everyone lays down for it because "it makes sense." Much of the guidelines and "laws" coming out now are reminiscent of state actions during the Nationalist party Regime in Deutschland. Is that where you want to end up over fear of a short-term disease?

 

[Rollerdude123]

Unless your boss is a government official, the punishment meted out has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.


It's not proving a point. It is standing up to a government that is taking rights away from people on the basis of fear. Rights were made for PRECISELY the moments when it is most inconvenient for the government to recognize them. Why is everyone so OK with governments stretching far beyond the general provisions in order to enforce illegal suppression of freedom? Again, this is how dictatorships begin, by the government seizing power when it is convenient and everyone lays down for it because "it makes sense." Much of the guidelines and "laws" coming out now are reminiscent of state actions during the Nationalist party Regime in Deutschland. Is that where you want to end up over fear of a short-term disease?

I don’t think most people agree that they are taking rights away from people. It’s a temporary measure with a stated public health concern and goal. Churches aren’t singled out. It applies to all large gatherings.

Plus, there is a great common good involved here.

 

[paladin181]

I don’t think most people agree that they are taking rights away from people. It’s a temporary measure with a stated public health concern and goal. Churches aren’t singled out. It applies to all large gatherings.

Plus, there is a great common good involved here.

I'm ok with that. Are you going to feel the same when they don't give your rights back? It's only short term as long as they decide they want it to be.

 

[roosterbell]

I personally think he needs a boot in his ass for unnecessarily putting people in danger. That was a pretty callous move in my opinion

I understand and support our Constitution, but safety and common sense should have been used here if the Pastor was truly tending his flock.

 

[USCrown]

It's never okay to trample our constitutional rights. There'll always be a plausible reason/justification that the government will use to justify their actions regardless of whether or not it's constitutional. These things set precedent, and once the flood gates are open there's no going back. Fear is the main tactic used to force people to follow along like a good herd of sheep. Yes people should use precautions and follow safety guidelines, but the government shouldn't be allowed to shut an entire country down for something that amounts to flu level or less mortality rates.

They are picking and choosing how they want to supposedly enforce these ordinances. Some areas on full lock down, yet other areas are a free for all. Walmart/grocery stores flooded with millions of people across the country right now trampling all over each other due to media induced panic, but yeah no concern for catching the virus there...smh Even if you concede Walmart /Grocery stores, there are several business that are forcing employees to go whether or not they want to by deeming them essential all for the sake of profits, yet people are up in arms when people make a free choice to worship at a church that just purchased hospital grade equipment used to fight the virus, hand sanitizer galor everywhere, spacing people apart, etc because it is their constitutional right...and then claim the church is only doing it for the money yet Amazon and JDs Kia are only staying open for your essential good?.

Can't go to church, but you can go to Amazon and slave in a warehouse and cough in a box, and touch every package with your infected hands before it gets shipped to an unknowing family. Can't go to church, but you can take your busted chevy to get some flowmasters put on, rent a car, buy a pet, get a pack of cigs and a 6 pack from your local convenience store (how many people in a day touch the keypad to enter your debit pin x 50 states?), take my clothes to get laundered, get the dog some shots at the vet, handle millions of $ in infected cash across your different banks, have the mail man touch every piece of mail, open my mailbox, stick dirty mail in, then touch every other mailbox in the neighborhood all while never wearing any gloves, sleezy Mr. Cornball sell me an infected used car or purchase some rundown property. We trust the guy making the cigs/liquor run to stay at home if he's sick, and wash his hands before opening the door, and punching in his pin number, but you don't trust a few of the saints to take reasonable precautions? How many millions of people do you think this puts at risk vs a select group of people choosing freely to worship during a time when it may be the only thing keeping them sane? Wake up people!

I have generations of family that fought in the military against real and perceived threats to preserve these very liberties that we've enjoyed. I never in a million years would have thought it would be this easy for us to give them away.

 

[Rollerdude123]

I'm ok with that. Are you going to feel the same when they don't give your rights back? It's only short term as long as they decide they want it to be.

im not worried about things that are not going to happen.

I don’t see any reason to even consider that they are shutting down churches for good. There is ZERO evidence of it. It makes no sense, sorry.

 

[Expro19]

Churches, like the one I attend, are free to gather as a group online. my son’s youth group gathered last night, online. He told me they’ve gathered together more online than they ever would in person.

With technology, there is no excuse for a church not to assemble together- but in a way that protects their neighbors.

Rodney Howard Browne is a prosperity gospel promoter like Trump’s “spiritual adviser” - Paula White.

If anyone can find a way to inject Trump into a crisis, you can. Good Lord Hammercy.

 

[Rollerdude123]

If anyone can find a way to inject Trump into a crisis, you can. Good Lord Hammercy.

Sorry to upset you but he’s of the same group of pastors as Trump’s nutty spiritual adviser.

 

[Expro19]

Sorry to upset you but he’s of the same group of pastors as Trump’s nutty spiritual adviser.

You can't upset me my man. I'm just making an educated observation.

 

[McCock]

It's never okay to trample our constitutional rights. There'll always be a plausible reason/justification that the government will use to justify their actions regardless of whether or not it's constitutional. These things set precedent, and once the flood gates are open there's no going back. Fear is the main tactic used to force people to follow along like a good herd of sheep. Yes people should use precautions and follow safety guidelines, but the government shouldn't be allowed to shut an entire country down for something that amounts to flu level or less mortality rates.

They are picking and choosing how they want to supposedly enforce these ordinances. Some areas on full lock down, yet other areas are a free for all. Walmart/grocery stores flooded with millions of people across the country right now trampling all over each other due to media induced panic, but yeah no concern for catching the virus there...smh Even if you concede Walmart /Grocery stores, there are several business that are forcing employees to go whether or not they want to by deeming them essential all for the sake of profits, yet people are up in arms when people make a free choice to worship at a church that just purchased hospital grade equipment used to fight the virus, hand sanitizer galor everywhere, spacing people apart, etc because it is their constitutional right...and then claim the church is only doing it for the money yet Amazon and JDs Kia are only staying open for your essential good?.

Can't go to church, but you can go to Amazon and slave in a warehouse and cough in a box, and touch every package with your infected hands before it gets shipped to an unknowing family. Can't go to church, but you can take your busted chevy to get some flowmasters put on, rent a car, buy a pet, get a pack of cigs and a 6 pack from your local convenience store (how many people in a day touch the keypad to enter your debit pin x 50 states?), take my clothes to get laundered, get the dog some shots at the vet, handle millions of $ in infected cash across your different banks, have the mail man touch every piece of mail, open my mailbox, stick dirty mail in, then touch every other mailbox in the neighborhood all while never wearing any gloves, sleezy Mr. Cornball sell me an infected used car or purchase some rundown property. We trust the guy making the cigs/liquor run to stay at home if he's sick, and wash his hands before opening the door, and punching in his pin number, but you don't trust a few of the saints to take reasonable precautions? How many millions of people do you think this puts at risk vs a select group of people choosing freely to worship during a time when it may be the only thing keeping them sane? Wake up people!

I have generations of family that fought in the military against real and perceived threats to preserve these very liberties that we've enjoyed. I never in a million years would have thought it would be this easy for us to give them away.

The Constitution’s protections are not absolute. Although I don’t disagree with your point about what are being characterized as “essential services,” freedoms under both the state and federal constitutions in pretty much all cases can be abridged when there is a compelling governmental interest in doing so (the bar for which is very high, at least in theory). There are clearly differences of opinion here and elsewhere about whether that interest currently exists, but the government believes that it does right now. I don’t think that current restrictions reasonably can be generalized under the current circumstances to mean that this will be any kind of a permanent condition.

But in the present context of the arrest of the pastor and shutting down the service, those actions don’t require a compelling interest because the First Amendment proscriptions at issue are basically content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions (as others have pointed out, these folks are still allowed to virtually worship, etc.). Generally, the test in such situations is whether there is a substantial governmental interest, and whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

it’s funny (not in the haha sense) what folks perceive to be an egregious overreach by government and what they perceive to be an acceptable abridgment of their freedoms. In the wake of 9/11, Congress enacted “temporary” legislation to vastly broaden law enforcement’s authority to conduct surveillance (USAPATRIOT Act among others). The law was supposed to sundown after a couple of years but was eventually made permanent, and if you ask many people, that law was an appropriate trade of rights to ensure safety. Those legislative acts may have been the largest restriction of constitutional freedoms occurring in one period of time in American history.

Approximately 3,000 people died in that attack, and perhaps 10-20k died from secondary effects in the years that followed (asbestosis, etc.). According to models, even with current CDC guidance in place, the likely US death toll from CV-19 will be many orders of magnitude greater. Unfortunately, logic often seems to give way to politics in situations like these, and we’re far too susceptible to believing what the leaders of our chosen political persuasion tell us to believe rather than taking a deep breath and thinking for ourselves.

 

[Flameout12]

I have generations of family that fought in the military against real and perceived threats to preserve these very liberties that we've enjoyed.

Then you can appreciate memes like "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" & "GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS".

Right now, our "troops" are those healthcare workers fighting on the front lines trying to save lives and begging us to not spread the CV.
I have friends whose family & friends are in the CV trenches. The have repeatedly asked for us to respect social distancing in the attempt to "flatten the curve". This hopefully gives our health care people some time so they can get a hold of this threat.

If you cannot connect the dots beyond this....I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.

 

[paladin181]

The Constitution’s protections are not absolute. Although I don’t disagree with your point about what are being characterized as “essential services,” freedoms under both the state and federal constitutions in pretty much all cases can be abridged when there is a compelling governmental interest in doing so (the bar for which is very high, at least in theory). There are clearly differences of opinion here and elsewhere about whether that interest currently exists, but the government believes that it does right now. I don’t think that current restrictions reasonably can be generalized under the current circumstances to mean that this will be any kind of a permanent condition.

But in the present context of the arrest of the pastor and shutting down the service, those actions don’t require a compelling interest because the First Amendment proscriptions at issue are basically content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions (as others have pointed out, these folks are still allowed to virtually worship, etc.). Generally, the test in such situations is whether there is a substantial governmental interest, and whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

it’s funny (not in the haha sense) what folks perceive to be an egregious overreach by government and what they perceive to be an acceptable abridgment of their freedoms. In the wake of 9/11, Congress enacted “temporary” legislation to vastly broaden law enforcement’s authority to conduct surveillance (USAPATRIOT Act among others). The law was supposed to sundown after a couple of years but was eventually made permanent, and if you ask many people, that law was an appropriate trade of rights to ensure safety. Those legislative acts may have been the largest restriction of constitutional freedoms occurring in one period of time in American history.

Approximately 3,000 people died in that attack, and perhaps 10-20k died from secondary effects in the years that followed (asbestosis, etc.). According to models, even with current CDC guidance in place, the likely US death toll from CV-19 will be many orders of magnitude greater. Unfortunately, logic often seems to give way to politics in situations like these, and we’re far too susceptible to believing what the leaders of our chosen political persuasion tell us to believe rather than taking a deep breath and thinking for ourselves.

For the record, I am appalled by the Patriot act as well. I have been using that as a warning for what could be coming.

 

[Gamekem]

I don't see the problem, there has already been numerous outbreaks connected to church services. For example a bulk of South Korea's early cases were due to a church service and New Rochelle's outbreak was linked to service as well. I think sometimes we spend too much time looking for things to be outraged about rather than use our common sense and look at the bigger picture. Technology has allowed us the luxury to congregate online and on television, sure it's not the same but it's a much better alternative than endangering yourself, others and potentially overworking the healthcare system even more due to some people's selfishness. In my eyes considering what we already know, congregating like that is no better than those who were frequenting night clubs and beaches a week ago. Time to grow up as collective and take this seriously, the sooner we tackle this, the sooner we can go back to our somewhat normal lives.

 

[alston]

That would be true if it only affected the members of the church. All it takes is for one member to pass it to others in the church. This is where it can affect those outside of the church. Those members who were infected inside the church then go out and infect people not involved in the church. Its completely selfish of them to put others at risk. If he wants to hold service then he can set up a live feed over the internet but I'm sure he doesn't want to do that because he can't pass around the collection plate which is all he really cares about.

The Constitution also provides that the government shall insure the general welfare of the people. The order doesn’t require the church to quit preaching or that the church doesn’t do fellowship. It requires them to do things to preserve the general welfare of the public. This church can do sermons online and fellowship in groups of less than 10. This is in order to preserve the general welfare of the country which the Constitution mandates the government to do. The First Amendment doesn’t override the rest of the constitution. If it did, it could override the Second Amendment. A person carrying a gun who disagrees with my point of view could be interfering with my right of free speech. This pastor will lose this case.