While we were debating this the USSC published a decision yesterday on this very issue. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals in a 5-4 decision denying a challenge from a Pentecostal church in San Diego who sued California Governor Newsom for restricting their church services. You should read it. States do have the right to restrict religious assembly.

Long settled law is only settled until there is another case.

Dred Scott v. Sanford was settled law too. Until it wasn’t.

There may be no debate pending currently, but that could easily change.

The right to assemble was LONG ago decided by the SCotUS as applying to the states.. The ENTIRE 1st amendment was decided as incorporated into the states and right to assemble is SETTLE LAW. THERE IS NO LEGAL DEBATE pending in the courts about that. It was decided long ago.

Here are the major cases: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/11/freedom-of-assembly

Whom ever told you that there is still debate about THIS point of law is completely uneducated in the area.

The issue isn’t so much religious belief, as it is right to assembly. You can still pray to God or whatever you do without being inside a building, though of course some sacraments like eating the wafers cannot be done without a priest, but nothing prevents them from standing outside and having a line of people pass by to get their blessing.

To turn State’s rights into them demanding official religions is a straw man argument. I never said the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to States.

You assert you are right. This is not such a clear-cut matter. There are a lot more legal questions here than a simply declaration “we are guaranteed the right to practice our religion any way we see fit, and nobody can tell us otherwise” — if that was true then religions could use illegal drugs in their “sacrament” or participate in animal or even human sacrifice and be protected from State laws prohibiting such. As you know, this is not the case.

I enjoy a robust discussion of these sort of things. I think it is helpful to gain perspective and perhaps new views and ideas that were not previously apparent.

You always have valuable insight. I thank you for taking the time.

There is ALWAYS debate. However it says what it says. There is no debate points saying it doesn’t mean what is written that is backed by ANYTHING in the constitution. To say the 1st doesn’t apply to the STATES means that STATES can demand official religions.

THAT is a weird position that is also not found in the constitution.

You don’t have to be so confrontational to someone you know is a good hearted person.

There is considerable debate about this issue and the 1st Amendment vs the 10th and what powers are conferred by those Amendments. It’s not as black and white as you seem to be asserting.

So are you FOR the PotUS overriding those unconstitutional orders from the State governors? Or are you against the constitution?

But it wasn’t my position, Wynski. Where did you get that I’m attacking him. You’ve misinterpreted the point of my comment. I wasn’t attacking Trump in this comment. If I gave that impression it wasn’t intentional. My focus was on what Flag and other Scn orgs would do IF he followed thru with what he said he was going to do; IF he overrode various governors’ determinations with regard to churches not being essential businesses – the ramifications of this possibility with regard to Scientology orgs and in particular, Flag. You’ll also note I admitted not knowing whether or not presidential power allowed him to do this (see paragraph one, last sentence: “Not sure if he can do that, but whatever.”) I’m no constitutional scholar; never said I was 🙂 Obviously, you are, and a president can as you say override any governor who closes churches in defiance of the Constitution. Got it! So I learned something. But I wasn’t focused on that aspect of it. I was focused on how Flag will be thrilled to be able to audit PCs again, mostly. And how that’s going to spread covid there, because the sheeple will be coming down from covid hot spots like New York City, and infecting the Sea Org people. There’s no way that auditing can be done with social distancing and masks. That was my point. So thanks for the free tutorial on the Constitution wherein you furnished an interesting example of a president wielding constitutional power with regard to JFK ‘s desegrating the schools back in the day (seriously,I’m not being sarcastic, that was interesting) and if Trump says all the churches have the right to be open if they want to be, well, I personally think they’d be foolish and irresponsible to open and mass together without masks and so forth if they’re in high risk areas but never mind, so be it and my ONLY point was and is that our favorite cult will be thrilled, ok? Now let’s kiss and make up 🙂

My pleasure, Aqua. It gives me joy to defend you against the mighty midget. Not that you need it but I still like to help.

Yes, indeed.