Trump Orders Immediate Reopening of Places of Worship, Says He'll Override Governors If They Refuse To Open

twf . . . .

It’s like Trump’s recent bizarre boast that he’s taking his favourite unproven drug and still standing… there’s no way even a die hard Trump supporter White House Doctor is giving the president of the United States a drug he doesn’t need. It’s nonsense… just a lie to promote his political position that it’s a miracle drug. If it’s not a lie… that’s even scarier.

Do you know South Korea, India, and China are all using hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine too?

Do you think that is a “promotion (of President Trump’s) political position” too?

Do you think the people from India sit around their TVs watching Trump news conferences and want to go out and take hydroxychloroquine to be “a die hard Trump supporter”?

'Government still not satisfied with the efficacy of antiviral drugs Remdesivir, Favipiravir in fighting Covid-19’

May 15, 2020 Times of India

. . . “Till the time, we only recommend hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as prophylaxis of COVID in selected individuals. It includes asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in the care of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID, asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases, a combination of HCQ with Azithromycin on patients with severe disease and requiring ICU management,” said the official . . .

2 Likes

What church was that? The one in Ark?

What church was that? The one in Ark?

twf

2h

It’s like Trump’s recent bizarre boast that he’s taking his favourite unproven drug and still standing… there’s no way even a die hard Trump supporter White House Doctor is giving the president of the United States a drug he doesn’t need. It’s nonsense…"

The drug has been around for decades and costs pennies. There is nothing wrong with taking it under the supervision of a physician. On any given day about 50,000 does are taken.

1 Like

I’m referring to the fact that Trump recently boasted that he personally is taking the drug. He isn’t sick, to our knowledge, and hasn’t claimed to be sick…but he clearly stated that he’s taking the drug in some effort to “prove” that its safe. That’s normal? That’s laudable?

The use of this drug shouldn’t be political at all, and I doubt it is anywhere other than the US. I’ve posted elsewhere on this forum that I, as a Canadian, find the politicization of this drug in the US absolutely astounding. I can’t imagine any of our political leaders promoting a drug…we leave that to doctors. My point was, Trump is making it political by not only promoting the drug, as a political leader, but by claiming he’s taking it just to prove a point.

I would be 100% behind you if you could say “I support Trump and I support his policies, but yes it was a little odd, and perhaps irresponsible, for him to tell the world he’s taking a drug when he’s not even sick.” But Trump supporters don’t do that…you seem to need to defend everything he says and does. Joe Biden says a lot of stupid things. Trump says a lot of stupid things. Every politician says a lot of stupid things. I don’t openly support a single politician on this planet. Here in Canada, there isn’t a single party I can support for one reason or another…and if I were an American, I would be in the same boat. What I can’t comprehend is the “everything Trump says or does no matter how absurd must be defended” position his supporters take. Just can’t relate to it…because every politician on this planet is fair game for criticism from where I’m standing.

If my doctor told me I needed to take this drug, I would. Its not political for me. I just find the fact that your president is boasting that he’s taking it personally when he isn’t even sick both bizarre and irresponsible. That Trump supporters aren’t calling him out for this is even more bizarre.

4 Likes

Trump is taking it under the care of a physician for a previously undisclosed disease… is that your position? I have no issue with people taking any drug under the guidance of their doctor. I was referring to Trump’s boast that he is personally, currently taking the drug.

It is intentionally decisive. The reaction confirms it.

Pick a large store…

1 Like

Please don’t hold anyone else responsible for your reactions.

1 Like

Where people stand in place for an hour and speak and sing.

No, they just rifle through communal food items and clothing. Much safer.

1 Like

We may shop in different places, and spend different mounts of time rifling.
But assembly in pace over a long term with aspiration is a major risk,. People who are working to keep others safe are paying attention to this,

Who is we? I don’t care whether you put your hands on my clementines at Costco or some lady from Peoria does. They aren’t wiping down the groceries.

You vs me.

So? i can wash them and my hands. I am more concerned about aerosols that I breathe in, in a crowd of speakers or singers.

Oh I’d win that one.

1 Like

My understanding was that he was taking it prophylactically. In other words, before or right after exposure. And since he sees or meets so many people, he has likely been exposed or will be exposed.

It could be that he knows of the study done in South Korea.

1 Like

twf . . .

I’m referring to the fact that Trump recently boasted that he personally is taking the drug. He isn’t sick, to our knowledge, and hasn’t claimed to be sick…

President Trump is on hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis.

At least theoretically, he is a perfect candidate for hydroxychloroquine therapy (along with the early diagnosed corona virus infected patients).

Go back and read the Times of India article explain the indications.

Then if you want, we can go through the mechanisms (they have all been linked to here before).
We can discuss WHY the Times of India says what it says in terms of the indications.

. . . “Till the time, we only recommend hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as prophylaxis of COVID in selected individuals.

All the “selected individuals” would be those of high chance of exposure. Since President Trump has a been in contact with a known exposure, he fits into that same paradigm.

3 Likes

Just proximate causes

Isn’t this the textbook definition of drug abuse? Michael Jackson and Prince both died under the care of ‘tame’ doctors. Taking drugs for unproven reasons is just wrong.

2 Likes

From Becket…
https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Letter-to-Governor-Walz.pdf
The federal constitution’s Free Exercise Clause
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects the right of religious groups
to gather for worship. Any law restricting that right that is not neutral and generally
applicable is subject to the “exceptionally demanding” strict scrutiny test. Holt v.
Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 353 (2015). Here, Order 20-56 will face strict scrutiny because,
among other things, it (1) is not generally applicable; and (2) is not neutral toward
religion.
General applicability. Strict scrutiny will apply because Order 20-56 is not
generally applicable. Supreme Court precedent specifies that general applicability is
its own free-exercise requirement—it does not depend on whether a law is neutral
toward religion. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508
U.S. 520, 542 (1993) (general applicability “a second requirement of the Free Exercise
Clause,” separate from neutrality analysis). A law is not generally applicable when it
“fail[s] to prohibit nonreligious conduct that endangers” the government’s regulatory
interest “in a similar or greater degree” than the prohibited religious conduct. Id. at
543.
At least three federal courts have now held that applying public health restrictions
differently to churches and retail establishments violates the Free Exercise Clause’s
general applicability requirement. “[T]he more exceptions to a prohibition, the less
likely it will count as a generally applicable, non-discriminatory law.” Roberts v.
Neace, No. 20-5465, 2020 WL 2316679, at *3 (6th Cir. May 9, 2020). In Roberts, the
Sixth Circuit enjoined Kentucky’s executive orders as applied to houses of worship in
a per curiam order, asking:
why do the orders permit people who practice social distancing and good
hygiene in one place but not another for similar lengths of time? It’s not
as if law firm office meetings and gatherings at airport terminals always
take less time than worship services.

In other words, The federal constitution’s Free Exercise Clause overrides the unconstitutional, discriminatory Governors’ restrictions on free exercise of religion.

If the Governors allow any assemblies they must not exclude religious assemblies.
They (the Governors) are asserting power, which under the free exercise clause is deemed unconstitutional.

3 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.