‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

[mourningdove~]

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions​

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

Walz encountered legal challenges for lockdown policies that religious organizations argued were discriminatory, placing stricter requirements on churches than businesses. He also encountered pushback after signing a law that stripped faith-based schools of funding for a program that offers free college credits to high school students.

Walz determined in a May 13, 2020, executive order that retailers would be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, but left religious gatherings capped at ten people. After Catholic and Lutheran churches in the state announced plans to resume meeting in-person regardless of the governor’s order, he negotiated to allow religious groups to operate at 25% capacity, according to the Star Tribune.

Two churches nevertheless moved forward with their lawsuit over discriminatory treatment. Walz settled in May 2021 after the state’s motion to dismiss was denied, agreeing to treat religious gatherings the same as “the least restricted secular business regulated by the order.”

Three churches backed by the Thomas More Society also filed a lawsuit in August 2020 arguing Walz violated their religious liberties by mandating masks, limiting capacity and requiring social distancing.

“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said in a press release at the time.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in May Walz’s declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to COVID-19, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center.

Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson called the state’s decision to exclude faith-based schools “patently anti-religious.”

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

Democratic vice president pick Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

dailycaller.com

 

[Fantine]

People in churches are generally in closer contact for longer periods than in retail establishments. There were probably sound medical reasons for this.
I am imagining the free college credits were at state universities. Did the religious schools comply with all the regulations the university imposed regarding textbooks, special certifications for teachers/adjuncts, etc.? Often religious schools want the funding but are unwilling to follow the rules. If a state U grants credits the course must mirror the course they teach.

 

[Yarddog]

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions​

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

Walz encountered legal challenges for lockdown policies that religious organizations argued were discriminatory, placing stricter requirements on churches than businesses. He also encountered pushback after signing a law that stripped faith-based schools of funding for a program that offers free college credits to high school students.

Walz determined in a May 13, 2020, executive order that retailers would be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, but left religious gatherings capped at ten people. After Catholic and Lutheran churches in the state announced plans to resume meeting in-person regardless of the governor’s order, he negotiated to allow religious groups to operate at 25% capacity, according to the Star Tribune.

Two churches nevertheless moved forward with their lawsuit over discriminatory treatment. Walz settled in May 2021 after the state’s motion to dismiss was denied, agreeing to treat religious gatherings the same as “the least restricted secular business regulated by the order.”

Three churches backed by the Thomas More Society also filed a lawsuit in August 2020 arguing Walz violated their religious liberties by mandating masks, limiting capacity and requiring social distancing.

“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said in a press release at the time.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in May Walz’s declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to COVID-19, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center.

Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson called the state’s decision to exclude faith-based schools “patently anti-religious.”

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

Democratic vice president pick Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

dailycaller.com

He gets an F in religious liberty but an A+ in Christian ethics for trying to save the lives of his fellow Minnesotans.

 

[chevyontheriver]

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions​

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

Walz encountered legal challenges for lockdown policies that religious organizations argued were discriminatory, placing stricter requirements on churches than businesses. He also encountered pushback after signing a law that stripped faith-based schools of funding for a program that offers free college credits to high school students.

Walz determined in a May 13, 2020, executive order that retailers would be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, but left religious gatherings capped at ten people. After Catholic and Lutheran churches in the state announced plans to resume meeting in-person regardless of the governor’s order, he negotiated to allow religious groups to operate at 25% capacity, according to the Star Tribune.

Two churches nevertheless moved forward with their lawsuit over discriminatory treatment. Walz settled in May 2021 after the state’s motion to dismiss was denied, agreeing to treat religious gatherings the same as “the least restricted secular business regulated by the order.”

Three churches backed by the Thomas More Society also filed a lawsuit in August 2020 arguing Walz violated their religious liberties by mandating masks, limiting capacity and requiring social distancing.

“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said in a press release at the time.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in May Walz’s declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to COVID-19, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center.

Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson called the state’s decision to exclude faith-based schools “patently anti-religious.”

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

Democratic vice president pick Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

dailycaller.com

The Catholic Church called his bluff and he eventually ignored that they went ahead and opened the churches over his rule. They should have ignored his rule from day one. But they finally did the right thing.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

People in churches are generally in closer contact for longer periods than in retail establishments. There were probably sound medical reasons for this.
I am imagining the free college credits were at state universities. Did the religious schools comply with all the regulations the university imposed regarding textbooks, special certifications for teachers/adjuncts, etc.? Often religious schools want the funding but are unwilling to follow the rules. If a state U grants credits the course must mirror the course they teach.

Why do you side with secularists who want to hurt and limit the Churches? How does this benefit Christians?

 

[RileyG]

As a lifelong Nebraskan, I'm embarrassed he's from the same state as me.

 

[RileyG]

The Catholic Church called his bluff and he eventually ignored that they went ahead and opened the churches over his rule. They should have ignored his rule from day one. But they finally did the right thing.

Yup! The left loves to attack the RCC and our religious liberty. They need to leave us alone NOW.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As a lifelong Nebraskan, I'm embarrassed he's from the same state as me.

As a former Minnesotan I feel I have been spared the last for years by not being in Minnesota.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yup! The left loves to attack the RCC and our religious liberty. They need to leave us alone NOW.

There will be another pandemic of one sort or another some day. And they will be telling us how we have to shut down the churches and the small businesses but keep open all of the big box stores. I'm all for preventing the spread of disease, but we can be smart enough to do so without shutting down.

 

[eclipsenow]

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions​

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

Walz encountered legal challenges for lockdown policies that religious organizations argued were discriminatory, placing stricter requirements on churches than businesses. He also encountered pushback after signing a law that stripped faith-based schools of funding for a program that offers free college credits to high school students.

Walz determined in a May 13, 2020, executive order that retailers would be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, but left religious gatherings capped at ten people. After Catholic and Lutheran churches in the state announced plans to resume meeting in-person regardless of the governor’s order, he negotiated to allow religious groups to operate at 25% capacity, according to the Star Tribune.

Two churches nevertheless moved forward with their lawsuit over discriminatory treatment. Walz settled in May 2021 after the state’s motion to dismiss was denied, agreeing to treat religious gatherings the same as “the least restricted secular business regulated by the order.”

Three churches backed by the Thomas More Society also filed a lawsuit in August 2020 arguing Walz violated their religious liberties by mandating masks, limiting capacity and requiring social distancing.

“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said in a press release at the time.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in May Walz’s declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to COVID-19, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center.

Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson called the state’s decision to exclude faith-based schools “patently anti-religious.”

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

Democratic vice president pick Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

dailycaller.com

Are you serious? That's not anti-religion - it's pro-health! He probably saved heaps of lives.
The way churches and businesses move and interact are different. In Australia, our Christian leaders raised the cry to COMPLY with lockdown procedures, church numbers, and stay at home orders.

EG: I was involved in video production of our service and sermons. We had Facebook groups etc.

The Lord Jesus died in our place - experiencing the wrath of God for us.
He calls us to take up our cross and follow him, and love our neighbour as ourselves.
And churches took LEGAL action against the governing authorities trying to protect fellow citizens from a deadly or health-battering virus with sometimes lifelong consequences without the vaccine yet?
When did we get so entitled?
When did we forget our primary mission - to share the words of God and the example of a life lived in love and service - not whining entitlement?

Unbelievable.
No - strike that - in an era of Trumpist entitlement - entirely TOO believable!

 

[Tuur]

Are you serious? That's not anti-religion - it's pro-health! He probably saved heaps of lives.

During the pandemic, I took someone tp a doctor for a checkup. Per instructions, we called once we were there. There was a grand total of three of us and a nurse told us to come in. We took our seats in the waiting room and happened to be widely spaced. Three people in the entire waiting room.

Another nurse comes in and has a conniption. "You're supposed to be evaluated outside!" Okay. Their office; their rules, though it would have been good to have everyone on the same page.

Keep in mind we were already in the waiting room. The logical thing would be to lock the door and evaluate us in place. No. We had to go back outside, have our temperature taken there, and then come back inside. We'd already been in the same room so going back outside only accomplished one thing. It maintained the rules, and that apparently overruled common sense.

We saw a lot of that. Most of it was knee jerk, like people buying water because of the pandemic. Why would they buy water? Because that's what we do when we know a big storm is coming. Laying up food supplies in anticipation of being quarantined is one thing; buying cases of water is simply reflex. In the same way, one municipality banned large gatherings (reasonable) but then also enacted a curfew. A curfew? Hello, you banned large gatherings so why do you also have a curfew? To arrest COVID viruses walking down the street? But a curfew is done after a natural disaster because it's kind of hard to see downed power lines and trees in the road or washed out or iced over portions of the road in the dark, plus it cuts down on looting. The curfew, like buying cases of water, was a knee-jerk reaction.

So it was, in one instance where a church had drive-in services (you sat in your car and listened to the service on FM radio) to isolate members, the local police gave warnings and/or issued citations for violating an order against large gatherings. Hello? People were sitting in their cars and not interacting with each other. Ah, but like the nurse who made our crowd of three march out, then back in again, the most important thing was the rules, not preventing the spread of the virus.

For the sake of discussion I'll ignore the ones who encouraged "protests" in 2020 even though arguably those were super-spreader events. No, let's discuss that. That was a key indication that the rules were arbitrary. So here we have Governor Walz commanding that stores and churches have limited capacity to stop the spread of the virus. Okay. But then he increased the number of people who could be in a store but not in churches. Here we have a situation where people are handling the same shopping carts and the same merchandise and are close together, but this is more permissible than attending church? What did he think was going on? That COVID wouldn't go into stores because it couldn't get a credit card? Or was it no more than he saw church attendance as less essential. And if he was so concerned about stopping the spread of the virus, why didn't he put a stop to the "protests" in 2020, which were a super-spreader event if there ever was one?

Only Walz and God knows what Walz was thinking and he may have thought he was saving lives but that didn't necessarily mean he knew what he was doing.

 

[eclipsenow]

The curfew, like buying cases of water, was a knee-jerk reaction.

Many things probably were - as it was a scary time and we didn't know what we were dealing with, and if or when a vaccine would become available. There's also some funky maths involved.

EG: It was my sister's turn to host Christmas. Then her region went into a serious lockdown and they were not allowed to leave the suburb. But because it was Christmas - we were allowed into the same suburb to see family - even though people from that suburb were not allowed out. Sounds crazy, right? But it wasn't so much about protecting the individuals involved from EVERY instance of harm if they decided to take the risk - but about protecting the health system. And apparently the maths checked out, because the number of new infections if those suburbs had all been able to drive across Sydney at will would have resulted in far more infections than the few who decided to venture into said suburbs and brought it home. The rest of Sydney was not that sick at the time - and not in lockdown. This weird system worked. Some of the legitimate policies are strange and the maths counter-intuitive.

So it was, in one instance where a church had drive-in services (you sat in your car and listened to the service on FM radio) to isolate members, the local police gave warnings and/or issued citations for violating an order against large gatherings. Hello? People were sitting in their cars and not interacting with each other.

Are you sure you got the rules right? Cops in NSW could pull you over just for driving down the road. I had a special letter as my logistical support meant thousands of others could work from home. I drove down empty highways. It was like I was in Will Smith's "I am Legend" or "The Last of us."

Here we have a situation where people are handling the same shopping carts and the same merchandise and are close together, but this is more permissible than attending church?

Carts can be wiped down. People sing in church. Sing!
Study the viral vector load of singing vs quietly shopping.

Only Walz and God knows what Walz was thinking and he may have thought he was saving lives but that didn't necessarily mean he knew what he was doing.

If you had access to more public health data - there are probably counter intuitive reasons he did what he did. And people die without groceries. Again - it wasn't about protecting every single individual - that's too 'me' focussed. It's about protecting the public health system from being swarmed - so that someone with an infected leg doesn't die of sepsis just because there are no beds because everyone was so entitled they ignored the risk - then of course got sick and DEMANDED to have a hospital bed!

Honestly - the entitlement of certain Christian groups in that time had me screaming at the TV! Where is their concern for others? The loving, honest, CHRISTIAN thing to do was stay home and listen to the service online! We live in the most online and media saturated culture in history - with so many more ways of communicating than the poor people stuck at home in the 1918 pandemic - and all we can do is whine "They banned church!"

 

[Hazelelponi]

There will be another pandemic of one sort or another some day. And they will be telling us how we have to shut down the churches and the small businesses but keep open all of the big box stores. I'm all for preventing the spread of disease, but we can be smart enough to do so without shutting down.

None of the lockdowns made sense. I was 100% against the way the lockdowns were handled.

With any illness you quarantine sick people. Not the healthy person.

With the hyped up incubation period they were touting what any sane society would do would be to quarantine the vulnerable populations (in the case of COVID the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions) and let the rest of society to get on with it.

The economic impact of COVID was worse than the disease because of the malfeasance of governance at the time, all over this country.

Any governor who didn't observe common sense during COVID, especially after what we were dealing with became clear, would ever get my support.

 

[chevyontheriver]

None of the lockdowns made sense. I was 100% against the way the lockdowns were handled.

With any illness you quarantine sick people. Not the healthy person.

With the hyped up incubation period they were touting what any sane society would do would be to quarantine the vulnerable populations (in the case of COVID the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions) and let the rest of society to get on with it.

The economic impact of COVID was worse than the disease because of the malfeasance of governance at the time, all over this country.

Any governor who didn't observe common sense during COVID, especially after what we were dealing with became clear, would ever get my support.

There are STILL people driving around masked, alone, in their cars, with their mouths covered, and their noses open to the fresh air. Such masking does NOTHING except to instill a false sense of safety. Most masks were not effective anyhow unless you carefully wore an N95 mask that few of us even had access to. Masking was a virtue signalling joke. And the folks who told us to do it knew it.

A very brief shutdown in the earliest days made some sense, back when there was some possibility of containment. But some people claimed there was racism in that. So, OK, containment failed. So we tripled down on containment. Except for big box stores, where the Covid could not spread for some reason.

It was a silly season that lasted way too long.

 

[Tuur]

There are STILL people driving around masked, alone, in their cars, with their mouths covered, and their noses open to the fresh air. Such masking does NOTHING except to instill a false sense of safety. Most masks were not effective anyhow unless you carefully wore an N95 mask that few of us even had access to. Masking was a virtue signalling joke. And the folks who told us to do it knew it.

A very brief shutdown in the earliest days made some sense, back when there was some possibility of containment. But some people claimed there was racism in that. So, OK, containment failed. So we tripled down on containment. Except for big box stores, where the Covid could not spread for some reason.

It was a silly season that lasted way too long.

Various measures were done on the local and state level, so they varied from place to place. Since most of the locals work in what was defined as essential industries, we didn't have a "lockdown." We saw limited capacity in places and distancing and mask wearing.

Mask wearing...well, the initial CDC report was interesting. They first advised against it because 1. There was a shortage of masks, and 2. people would expose themselves more through incorrect handling by bringing contaminated hands near their nose, mouth, and eyes than they would if they didn't wear a mask at all. That led to an outcry, and the CDC reversed itself, so now we had masking.

So it was that one day I had to go to the bank and there was a sign that masking was required and I had none. I did have an old-style bandana (thicker material and made of cotton more substantial than a tee-shirt), so I put that on. There I was, in the bank, wearing a bandana as a mask, a slip of paper in my hand, and thinking "This does not look good."

Masks could help if worn and handled properly by limiting the spread of droplets containing the virus. But, as you observed, you had people wearing them with their nose uncovered, and you'd see people fiddling with the things or putting them on without so much as using hand sanitizer, and yes, driving, alone, down a road and wearing a mask. Will admit to having done the latter where I had to make frequent stops and didn't want to fiddle with it.

The theory of lockdowns was initially valid and was an admission you could have COVID and be contagious prior to symptoms and there was a difference in the accuracy of the two types of tests. Unfortunately, what came out of New York City, though, implied that people under "lockdown" still contracted the illness, likely because people still have to buy food and essentials and surfaces are a point of contact. FWIW, those of us who had to "go amongst them," which here was practically everyone, weren't dropping in the streets. Oh, there were deaths due to COVID and I think we all know some who died from it, but it wasn't the black plague, either. That was before a vaccine was available.

We all lived through this, though, and we saw what we saw, and none of this is news to anyone. At least we didn't have a snitch line like Minnesota: One Minnesota: Thousands reported on neighbors using tattle-tale hotline during pandemic

 

[Yarddog]

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions​

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

Walz encountered legal challenges for lockdown policies that religious organizations argued were discriminatory, placing stricter requirements on churches than businesses. He also encountered pushback after signing a law that stripped faith-based schools of funding for a program that offers free college credits to high school students.

Walz determined in a May 13, 2020, executive order that retailers would be allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, but left religious gatherings capped at ten people. After Catholic and Lutheran churches in the state announced plans to resume meeting in-person regardless of the governor’s order, he negotiated to allow religious groups to operate at 25% capacity, according to the Star Tribune.

Two churches nevertheless moved forward with their lawsuit over discriminatory treatment. Walz settled in May 2021 after the state’s motion to dismiss was denied, agreeing to treat religious gatherings the same as “the least restricted secular business regulated by the order.”

Three churches backed by the Thomas More Society also filed a lawsuit in August 2020 arguing Walz violated their religious liberties by mandating masks, limiting capacity and requiring social distancing.

“Governor Walz, a former teacher, gets an F in religious liberties,” Thomas More Society special counsel Erick Kaardal said in a press release at the time.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld in May Walz’s declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to COVID-19, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center.

Becket senior counsel Diana Thomson called the state’s decision to exclude faith-based schools “patently anti-religious.”

‘Patently Anti-Religious’: Tim Walz Has History Of Restricting Faith-Based Institutions

Democratic vice president pick Tim Walz has faced multiple lawsuits for infringing on religious liberty during his time as Minnesota governor.

dailycaller.com

Are they trying to say that Lutherans are anti-religious? Waltz a Lutheran.

 

[chevyontheriver]

During the pandemic, I took someone tp a doctor for a checkup. Per instructions, we called once we were there. There was a grand total of three of us and a nurse told us to come in. We took our seats in the waiting room and happened to be widely spaced. Three people in the entire waiting room.

Another nurse comes in and has a conniption. "You're supposed to be evaluated outside!" Okay. Their office; their rules, though it would have been good to have everyone on the same page.

Keep in mind we were already in the waiting room. The logical thing would be to lock the door and evaluate us in place. No. We had to go back outside, have our temperature taken there, and then come back inside. We'd already been in the same room so going back outside only accomplished one thing. It maintained the rules, and that apparently overruled common sense.

We saw a lot of that. Most of it was knee jerk, like people buying water because of the pandemic. Why would they buy water? Because that's what we do when we know a big storm is coming. Laying up food supplies in anticipation of being quarantined is one thing; buying cases of water is simply reflex. In the same way, one municipality banned large gatherings (reasonable) but then also enacted a curfew. A curfew? Hello, you banned large gatherings so why do you also have a curfew? To arrest COVID viruses walking down the street? But a curfew is done after a natural disaster because it's kind of hard to see downed power lines and trees in the road or washed out or iced over portions of the road in the dark, plus it cuts down on looting. The curfew, like buying cases of water, was a knee-jerk reaction.

So it was, in one instance where a church had drive-in services (you sat in your car and listened to the service on FM radio) to isolate members, the local police gave warnings and/or issued citations for violating an order against large gatherings. Hello? People were sitting in their cars and not interacting with each other. Ah, but like the nurse who made our crowd of three march out, then back in again, the most important thing was the rules, not preventing the spread of the virus.

For the sake of discussion I'll ignore the ones who encouraged "protests" in 2020 even though arguably those were super-spreader events. No, let's discuss that. That was a key indication that the rules were arbitrary. So here we have Governor Walz commanding that stores and churches have limited capacity to stop the spread of the virus. Okay. But then he increased the number of people who could be in a store but not in churches. Here we have a situation where people are handling the same shopping carts and the same merchandise and are close together, but this is more permissible than attending church? What did he think was going on? That COVID wouldn't go into stores because it couldn't get a credit card? Or was it no more than he saw church attendance as less essential. And if he was so concerned about stopping the spread of the virus, why didn't he put a stop to the "protests" in 2020, which were a super-spreader event if there ever was one?

Only Walz and God knows what Walz was thinking and he may have thought he was saving lives but that didn't necessarily mean he knew what he was doing.

The burning and riots in Minneapolis were a super-spreader event. But pay no mind and keep the churches closed for public health reasons.

Various measures were done on the local and state level, so they varied from place to place. Since most of the locals work in what was defined as essential industries, we didn't have a "lockdown." We saw limited capacity in places and distancing and mask wearing.

Mask wearing...well, the initial CDC report was interesting. They first advised against it because 1. There was a shortage of masks, and 2. people would expose themselves more through incorrect handling by bringing contaminated hands near their nose, mouth, and eyes than they would if they didn't wear a mask at all. That led to an outcry, and the CDC reversed itself, so now we had masking.

So it was that one day I had to go to the bank and there was a sign that masking was required and I had none. I did have an old-style bandana (thicker material and made of cotton more substantial than a tee-shirt), so I put that on. There I was, in the bank, wearing a bandana as a mask, a slip of paper in my hand, and thinking "This does not look good."

Masks could help if worn and handled properly by limiting the spread of droplets containing the virus. But, as you observed, you had people wearing them with their nose uncovered, and you'd see people fiddling with the things or putting them on without so much as using hand sanitizer, and yes, driving, alone, down a road and wearing a mask. Will admit to having done the latter where I had to make frequent stops and didn't want to fiddle with it.

The theory of lockdowns was initially valid and was an admission you could have COVID and be contagious prior to symptoms and there was a difference in the accuracy of the two types of tests. Unfortunately, what came out of New York City, though, implied that people under "lockdown" still contracted the illness, likely because people still have to buy food and essentials and surfaces are a point of contact. FWIW, those of us who had to "go amongst them," which here was practically everyone, weren't dropping in the streets. Oh, there were deaths due to COVID and I think we all know some who died from it, but it wasn't the black plague, either. That was before a vaccine was available.

We all lived through this, though, and we saw what we saw, and none of this is news to anyone. At least we didn't have a snitch line like Minnesota: One Minnesota: Thousands reported on neighbors using tattle-tale hotline during pandemic

I was deemed 'essential' as well. I had a day contract job in Wisconsin not far from my Minnesota home in the very early quarantine. So I had to be prepared with suitable paperwork to prove potentially to highway patrols in two states that I wasn't a non-essential super-spreader but an essential super-spreader. Alas the Highway patrols were quarantined to their respective donut shops and I had no trouble. Later on I just stopped taking jobs that insisted 'masks required'. Life is too short to try to breathe through those things. I haven't gotten Covid yet even though I have been tested for it a few times. Yes, I know some people got really sick. I know some people died.

One good thing from Covid though. It used to be employers didn't believe you if you called in sick. So the sometimes required play was to come in sick and then get the boss sick so he or she knew you really were sick because they were so miserably sick. Now they trust you and tell you not to come back until you are symptom free.

Minnesota and East Germany? The Stazi and Walz? I'm glad I no longer live in Minnesota. The natural beauty of the whole state was overwhelming. But instead of being the Land of Loons it became the Land of Loony People, mostly the upper ups of government. There were buildings I worked on that were burned down in the 'Summer of Love and Anarchy'. I still will not drive through Minneapolis when visiting Minnesota.

By the way, Scott Jensen, who ran against Walz, has some information on him gleaned the hard way:

 

[Tuur]

Are they trying to say that Lutherans are anti-religious? Waltz a Lutheran.

Nixon was a Quaker.
Clinton is a Baptist.
Biden is a Roman Catholic.

Church membership is one thing; following Christ is another.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Are they trying to say that Lutherans are anti-religious? Waltz a Lutheran.

That would be a good question for some Lutherans to respond to. Waltz’ parents were Catholic. He’s Lutheran.

 

[Valletta]

Are you serious? That's not anti-religion - it's pro-health! He probably saved heaps of lives.
The way churches and businesses move and interact are different. In Australia, our Christian leaders raised the cry to COMPLY with lockdown procedures, church numbers, and stay at home orders.

EG: I was involved in video production of our service and sermons. We had Facebook groups etc.

The Lord Jesus died in our place - experiencing the wrath of God for us.
He calls us to take up our cross and follow him, and love our neighbour as ourselves.
And churches took LEGAL action against the governing authorities trying to protect fellow citizens from a deadly or health-battering virus with sometimes lifelong consequences without the vaccine yet?
When did we get so entitled?
When did we forget our primary mission - to share the words of God and the example of a life lived in love and service - not whining entitlement?

Unbelievable.
No - strike that - in an era of Trumpist entitlement - entirely TOO believable!

Walz was fine with retail businesses but specifically went after churches.