Is this what the Opposition to Trump want?

Albion said:

So it matters what non-members think of some faith, but not what the faith itself professes or what its own members believe? How interesting.

Click to expand...

Does it matter what you, a non-member, thinks of satanism if a satanist wants to do what the faith professes and sacrifice humans? Somehow I think it does; well, does it?

Albion said:

Is someone forcing a priest to "serve" the sacraments?


So it matters what non-members think of some faith, but not what the faith itself professes or what its own members believe? How interesting.

Click to expand...

I’m dealing with facts. It’s a fact that if the priest chooses to serve the sacraments (because people like the OP think it’s a travesty not to), that priest is going to be taking a huge risk of getting the virus.

it’s also a fact that the Bible does not call for communion in a church administered by a priest.

Sparagmos said:

I’m dealing with facts.

Click to expand...

Now, that really is interesting, considering that I had been thinking that you were lacking that ingredient and were just needling.

It’s a fact that if the priest chooses to serve the sacraments (because people like the OP think it’s a travesty not to), that priest is going to be taking a huge risk of getting the virus.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that's not what you wrote ("Serving the sacraments in person this year could kill the priest").

it’s also a fact that the Bible does not call for communion in a church administered by a priest.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see that you added "in a church" to your claim. Perhaps if you had made it be "in a Gothic church with stained glass windows" you could have made it even safer from criticism.

Sparagmos said:

I’m dealing with facts. It’s a fact that if the priest chooses to serve the sacraments (because people like the OP think it’s a travesty not to), that priest is going to be taking a huge risk of getting the virus.

it’s also a fact that the Bible does not call for communion in a church administered by a priest.

Click to expand...

And a risk of passing it on to everyone taking those sacraments. And any who catch it then put everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

Somehow that seems rather unlike the Christ they claim to follow.

keith99 said:

And a risk of passing it on to everyone taking those sacraments. And any who catch it then put everyone else they come into contact with at risk.

Somehow that seems rather unlike teh Christ they claim to follow.

Click to expand...

Yes. To be clear, insisting upon conducting worship, etc. in exactly the same way as if there were no epidemic going on is or would be irresponsible in a number of ways--and not required by the church or the faith anyway.

BUT the folks who have thought it fun to jump all over the few congregations which apparently intend to do something like this are not right to argue that freedom of religion, the Constitution, and so on are just irrelevant. Doing that takes the issue in another direction.

Of course they are irrelevant and even offensive to some people who disavow all religions, but that isn't changed one way or the other because of the fact that we are dealing with this current Coronavirus outbreak.

Let's get one thing straight, for starters:

We are not the "opposition to Trump."

We are the "proponents of survival."

Where Trump has done well, we are grateful. He has done a number of things right lately----although he has done them six to eight weeks later than he should have. Still, whether it was seeing the poll numbers respond to weeping doctors and nurses or refrigerated morgue trucks outside Elmhurst General Hospital, or perhaps fear for his own investments, he finally acted.

Jesus said we should "love our neighbor as ourselves." How does exposing them to a very contagious disease with a 3% death rate and a 20% rate of lung damage to those who recover constitute "loving our neighbor?"

I love my neighbor enough to protect them and others. I am watching Masses and religious messages online. Our churches are open during the day for prayer--we just need to stay away from others who might be praying and use hand sanitizer going in and out.

I am following God's will to love my neighbor. May our president follow my example.

Albion said:

Yes. To be clear, insisting upon conducting worship, etc. in exactly the same way as if there were no epidemic going on is or would be irresponsible in a number of ways--and not required by the church or the faith anyway.

BUT the folks who have thought it fun to jump all over the few congregations which apparently intend to do something like this are not right to argue that freedom of religion, the Constitution, and so on are just irrelevant. Doing that takes the issue in another direction.

Of course they are irrelevant and even offensive to some people who disavow all religions, but that isn't changed one way or the other because of the fact that we are dealing with this current Coronavirus outbreak.

Click to expand...

Of course the constitutional protections are relevant. BUT those provisions do not give any particular religion or religion in general rights to do things forbidden to everyone else. That in fact is prohibited by teh first amendment. Arguing that religious groups should be permitted to assemble when all others are prohibited from doing so is as foolish as arguing that Churches should have been exempt from the blackout provisions during teh bombing of London.

Is it really so much to ask that everyone just show some common sense and come together to help stop a pandemic from getting any worse?

Fantine said:

Let's get one thing straight, for starters:

We are not the "opposition to Trump."

We are the "proponents of survival."

Click to expand...

Ah, so then you are the opposition to Trump, and the Markets. Billionaires are suffering! How can you be so callous to put the lives of a few million people before Trump and the Markets?

keith99 said:

Of course the constitutional protections are relevant. BUT those provisions do not give any particular religion or religion in general rights to do things forbidden to everyone else.

Click to expand...

I agree, but neither have I noticed any instances of a church/congregation insisting upon going ahead with services as usual WHILE ALSO insisting that other denominations cannot do the same.

Arguing that religious groups should be permitted to assemble when all others are prohibited from doing so is as foolish as arguing that Churches should have been exempt from the blackout provisions during teh bombing of London.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of Constitutional guarantees...and we all should care about that, not just when it affects something near and dear to us personally. There is no amendment that guarantees that grocery stores shall remain open, for example.

Kentonio said:

Is it really so much to ask that everyone just show some common sense and come together to help stop a pandemic from getting any worse?

Click to expand...

Sadly, for some people, it is too much to ask. Fortunately, the majority either have the sense, or accept the sense.

Albion said:

Now, that really is interesting, considering that I had been thinking that you were lacking that ingredient and were just needling.


Maybe so, but that's not what you wrote ("Serving the sacraments in person this year could kill the priest").


Ah. I see that you added "in a church" to your claim. Perhaps if you had made it be "in a Gothic church with stained glass windows" you could have made it even safer from criticism.

Click to expand...

Any reasonable person can see the points I was making. They were absolutely factual and your retort even demonstrates that further.

Aryeh Jay said:

Ah, so then you are the opposition to Trump, and the Markets. Billionaires are suffering! How can you be so callous to put the lives of a few million people before Trump and the Markets?

Click to expand...

Re: the idea that seniors should risk their lives to save the economy: income inequality is rampant and accelerating. The 1% have a huge share of the country's wealth. So when privileged politicians and pundits suggest we sacrifice our lives for "the economy" they are suggesting we sacrifice for an economy that primarily benefits them and their heirs. My message to them: it's your prosperity. You make the sacrifice.

Kentonio said:

Is it really so much to ask that everyone just show some common sense and come together to help stop a pandemic from getting any worse?

Click to expand...

It would appear so.

Fantine said:

Re: the idea that seniors should risk their lives to save the economy: income inequality is rampant and accelerating. The 1% have a huge share of the country's wealth. So when privileged politicians and pundits suggest we sacrifice our lives for "the economy" they are suggesting we sacrifice for an economy that primarily benefits them and their heirs. My message to them: it's your prosperity. You make the sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Nothing new about this: The wealthy have always cajoled the poor to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the status quo. Look at war. The rich are deferred; the poor are cannon fodder.

Albion said:

Yes. To be clear, insisting upon conducting worship, etc. in exactly the same way as if there were no epidemic going on is or would be irresponsible in a number of ways--and not required by the church or the faith anyway.

Click to expand...

Irresponsible and in many cases, illegal.

Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite 'safer-at-home' orders

BUT the folks who have thought it fun to jump all over the few congregations which apparently intend to do something like this are not right to argue that freedom of religion, the Constitution, and so on are just irrelevant. Doing that takes the issue in another direction.

Click to expand...

They certainly are not irrelevant... but nor are they absolute. Our government has chosen to make public health a priority, and I see no reason to disagree at the moment.

Of course they are irrelevant and even offensive to some people who disavow all religions, but that isn't changed one way or the other because of the fact that we are dealing with this current Coronavirus outbreak.

Click to expand...

Actually, they are changed... they're not irrelevant, but they're no longer the number one priority.

And of course, there are some Christians who are complaining about that... as always.

essentialsaltes said:

Wahhabi should count, then.

Click to expand...

LINK

Saudi Arabia has asked Muslims to wait until there is more clarity about the coronavirus pandemicbefore planning to attend the annual Hajjpilgrimage, the Minister for Hajj and Umrah said on state TV on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, Saudi Arabia suspended the year-round Umrah pilgrimage over fears of the new coronavirus spreading to Islam's holiest cities, an unprecedented move that raised uncertainty over the annual Hajj.