Jews in Colonial America

 If you know a patriot who has misgivings about Jews (I have never met one, but I am sure they are out there) share this video with them:

I learned a bit. One item only touched on was Jews in colonial militias.  From my book Armed America (2007):

Jews were exempted from militia duty, and obligated to pay a special tax instead, because: “first the disgust and unwillingness of these trainbands to be fellow soldiers with the aforesaid nation and to be on guard with them in the same guard house and on the other side, that the said nation was not admitted or counted among the citizens” in Amsterdam “nor (to our knowledge) in any city in Netherland.”[1] 

---

[1] Berthold Fernow, ed., Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany, N.Y.: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1887; reprinted New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1969), 12:96. 

Strict Scrutiny and Free Exercise of Religion

 Tandon v. Newsom (2021) granted relief from California's ban on in-home religious services until the Court hears the case, overturning the 9th Circuit's unwillingness to strike down the ban in the meantime.

First, government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3–4). It is no answer that a State treats some comparable secular businesses or other activities as poorly as or even less favorably than the religious exercise at issue. Id., at ___–___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3).

Second, whether two activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regulation at issue. Id., at ___ (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (describing secular activities treated more favorably than religious worship that either “have contributed to the spread of COVID–19” or “could” have presented similar risks). Comparability is concerned with the risks various activities pose, not the reasons why people gather. Id., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2). 

Third, the government has the burden to establish that the challenged law satisfies strict scrutiny. To do so in this context, it must do more than assert that certain risk factors “are always present in worship, or always absent from the other secular activities” the government may allow. 

This is interesting because the insistence of courts of appeals to apply intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment is usually couched in public safety terms.  Bu this is also a public safety claim.  Perhaps the Court will get past its fear of court packing at some point and recognize that strict scrutiny applies here as well. 

Important Decision

UZUEGBUNAM ET AL. v. PRECZEWSKI ET AL. (2021): Along with having two unprounounceable names as the two parties, this case involves several different issues.

1. May a public college limit the distribution of literature on campus except in two tiny free speech zones, so that those afraid of having their ideas challenged do not need to be exposed to contrary points of view?  (Notb that this could happen in most college classrooms.)

2. Campus security told this group of students that they needed a permit to expose students to new ideas, and even then, only in the tiny free speech zones.

3. They got a permit, went to the free speech zone, and were then told that what they were saying offended some students, so they had to stop.

4. The students sued the college, which suddenly realized that all of America is, for the time being, a free speech zone, and being offended is not a valid basis to suppress free speech.  The college repealed their orders.

5. The students pursued what the Court called "nominal damages."  The college said the case was moot because the rules prohibiting free speech had been repealed.

6. The Court by an 8-1 majority ruled that because the injury was real, even though the college had ceased its repressive ways, the suit could continue.  Doing wrong and promising that you will behave in the future is not enough.

Articles of Faith

For all Christians trying to make Big Brother love them and eat them last: Rev. John MacArthur does not care about public health because his church will not do social distancing and masks. 

It turns out when MacArthur's church offered to continue wearing masks and doing social distancing:

Referring to the weekend’s events, MacArthur added “there was a court order that granted this church and this church alone, the right to meet indoors. And the powers of the city were not happy about that – they were going to be asking us to do two things, social distance and [to] wear masks.”

“That was until yesterday when the city – [after] we agreed and [said] ‘look we’ll comply for a few weeks, we are not wanting to be defiant, we will do what is reasonable’ – that was not enough for the city. They went to the appellate court at the last minute on Saturday late, and had that order removed.