To the Editor
Who Resisted the Religion of Covid?
Jeffery Tucker, founder of Brownstone Institute, asked this question noting that religious attendance is down at least 10% after Covid.  The fact is, most of the clergy in the United States didn’t protest the state ‘mandated’ closures of churches.  This reality is a black mark on many clergymen.  Some clergy however resisted and their congregations’ worship is as strong or stronger after Covid. Evidently some pastors found ‘nothing in the Gospels about social distancing’.   In contrast, Dr. Fauci told us to ‘distance’ from everyone and to seek salvation through untested pharmaceuticals.  So who resisted?  Mr. Tucker notes Amish, Mennonites, traditional Catholics, ultra-orthodox Jews, and traditional believers who value freedom of conscience.  Who didn’t resist?  According to Mr. Tucker, clergy in secular areas with watered down doctrine didn’t resist.   Some churches required ‘proof’ of vaccination cards, masks or both.  Thinking back, it’s hard to believe that weddings and funerals in America were ‘prohibited’.  Despite the mandates, some Americans including Idahoans still place God’s experience ahead of tyrannical government edicts.  Tucker notes that it appears faith “enabled people to follow real science better than those who outsourced their hearts and salvation to pharmaceutical companies and government bureaucrats”.  Is State mandated closure of churches a big deal? My opinion: If it’s true that no time in history has civil liberties been lost when religious liberty has been respected, it’s a big deal.
Scott Perrin
Cottonwood

To the Editor
The word “law” comes from old Norse and means “something that is well established”.
The “Common Law” is law basically derived from the biblical idea of law, that being, the Ten Commandments.
When was the last time God amended His law?
It has never changed.
When was the last time your city council, or county, or state, or national government changed the law?
Probably just about every chance they get – especially at the state and federal levels.
Can I say something obvious here?
How can a law be an “established thing” if it is changed all the time?
Several years ago, a book was published called “3 Felonies a day” which purported that, on average, an American is guilty of violating a felony law about three times a day.
Ever heard the term “Indict a ham sandwich”?  It means you can drag just about anyone into court and sue them or accuse them of a crime regardless of who they are.
The fact is, by the very definition of the word, our country is not under “the rule of law” but under the “whims of men”.
Our state and federal legislatures have become a race to “get things done”.  A new representative arrives with a gamut of rules, committees, existing laws, and massive bureaucracy that forces them quickly into playing the “fix it” game of law.
It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not they know the constitution, much less the existing laws on the books.
They are immediately inundated with lobbyists and proposed legislation to review with very little time to evaluate what they must soon vote on.
Does this not strike you as a very poor way to treat “an established thing”?
The consequences of massively changing and complex law are significant.
Our country, indeed our world, doesn’t need more law, it needs simpler and more established laws that everyone can understand and apply.
Sandy (Sanford) Staab
Kooskia