23% of world’s nations used force to halt religious gatherings in 2020: Pew report

[HARK!]

Governments in nearly a quarter of the world’s nations, including the United States, used force to prevent religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a new Pew Research Center study says.


Twenty-three percent of world governments employed “arrests and detentions; physical assaults; damage, confiscation or raiding of private property; displacements of people from their homes; or killings” to enforce restrictions on religious gatherings in the first year of the pandemic, according to Pew’s “How COVID-19 Restrictions Affected Religious Groups Around the World in 2020” report.

23% of world’s nations used force to halt religious gatherings in 2020: Pew report

Governments in nearly a quarter of the world’s nations, including the United States, used force to prevent religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a new Pew Research Center study says.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Bradskii]

Breaking news: Religous groups in twenty-three percent of the world's nations risked the lives of their fellow citizens by ignoring covid restrictions in 2020.

 

[HARK!]

Breaking news: Religous groups in twenty-three percent of the world's nations risked the lives of their fellow citizens by ignoring covid restrictions in 2020.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


God bless America!

 

[Occams Barber]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


God bless America!

First of all - the law you quoted is an American law. It is not relevant to the "twenty three percent of the world's nations" you are complaining about.

Secondly - in most cases the gatherings were banned or stopped to prevent the spread of Covid 19. Being a religious organisation does not provide an excuse to risk the life and health of others.

OB

 

[HARK!]

including the United States

First of all - the law you quoted is an American law. It is not relevant to the "twenty three percent of the world's nations" you are complaining about.

Secondly - in most cases the gatherings were banned or stopped to prevent the spread of Covid 19. Being a religious organisation does not provide an excuse to risk the life and health of others.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are voluntary assemblies under U.S. law; but under YHWH's law they're mandatory.

I think that the U.S. should adopt YHWH's standards.

 

[Occams Barber]

These are voluntary assemblies under U.S. law; but under YHWH's law they're mandatory.

I think that the U.S. should adopt YHWH's standards.

The laws in the US are for the people of the US to decide.

Since the rest of the world is not the US we will also make our own decisions on how we will apply the law.

OB

 

[HARK!]

The laws in the US are for the people of the US to decide.

Since the rest of the world is not the US we will also make our own decisions on how we will apply the law.

The people of the U.S. have decided that there will be no law prohibiting freedom of religion, nor freedom of assembly.

 

[Bradskii]

The people of the U.S. have decided that there will be no law prohibiting freedom of religion, nor freedom of assembly.

That constitutional right (assembly) is not absolute.

'As with all constitutional rights, the right of assembly may be limited in some situations, including when gatherings threaten public safety and health.' https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html

Same in Australia.

'In addition, under article 21 freedom of assembly may be subject to restrictions "imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".' https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-pr...sheets/right-freedom-assembly-and-association

The article referred to (and the quote) is from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As well as Australia, the US is a also a signatory (Bush in '92). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Aren't you lucky to have these laws to protect you.

 

[HARK!]

'As with all constitutional rights, the right of assembly may be limited in some situations, including when gatherings threaten public safety and health.' https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html

Again these meetings are voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't go out of your way to attend. Aside from that many of these assemblies are private; so that means they are not public.

 

[Bradskii]

Again these meetings are voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't go out of your way to attend. Aside from that many of these assemblies are private; so that means they are not public.

I'm really not sure why you think any of that matters...

 

[Estrid]

These are voluntary assemblies under U.S. law; but under YHWH's law they're mandatory.

I think that the U.S. should adopt YHWH's standards.

Others want Allah's standards

 

[Estrid]

The people of the U.S. have decided that there will be no law prohibiting freedom of religion, nor freedom of assembly.

A tiny group of white men decided on that about
250 years ago.

 

[HARK!]

Others want Allah's standards

Allah is a title, not a name,

 

[HARK!]

A tiny group of white men decided on that about
250 years ago.

That sounds racist and sexist. Our founders represented the People, just as the representative government that we have today.

 

[Estrid]

That sounds racist and sexist. Our founders represented the People, just as the representative government that we have today.

As a member of a non white
minority/ female it's impossible for me to
be racist or sexist. : D

The 1700s were profiundly
racist / sexist / christian bigot
times. We all know that.
No women or no white were allowed
to vote.
Representatives don't always do as
they were elected to do.
( read my lips no new taxes)

Saying I am racist / sexist for noting that
obvious fact is neither fair nor reasonable.


Some percent of a minority of the population
voted 250 years ago for reps who didn't tell
then they'd put in the establishment clause.

I won't call that "the American people decided".

 

[HARK!]

Saying I am racist / sexist for noting that
obvious fact is neither fair nor reasonable.

I said that your statement sounds racist and sexist. That is because it is.

Can we get back on topic now.

 

[Estrid]

I said that your statement sounds racist and sexist. That is because it is.

First it sounded racist, now it is racist.

Facts are not racist.

It is racist to you as you choose to see it
that way.

I'm sorry to see you act like that.

Personally, I don't make or accept charges
of racism lightly.

It took me weeks to track down the guy
who scrawled " CHINK" on my dorm door.

We ended up on good terms btw. Just a
very immature guy who didn't think about what
he was doing.

You sure you want to call me racist / sexist?

 

[HARK!]

You sure you want to call me racist / sexist?

I didn't say that you are a racist/sexist. I said that your statement was racist/sexist. There is a difference.

I made a statement about a compact; and you made no comment on the merits of the compact. Instead the foundation of our culture was dismissed in a manner condescending to white males.

If I dismissed your ideas, your philosophy, as coming from someone of your race and gender; I suspect that you would find such a statement to be offensive. Even if you didn't, many onlookers would.

 

[Torah Keeper]

I didn't say that you are a racist/sexist. I said that your statement was racist/sexist. There is a difference.

I made a statement about a compact; and you made no comment on the merits of the compact. Instead the foundation of our culture was dismissed in a manner condescending to white males.

If I dismissed your ideas, your philosophy, as coming from someone of your race and gender; I suspect that you would find such a statement to be offensive. Even if you didn't, many onlookers would.

Actually, she is racist/sexist. That's blatantly obvious from her comments on this site, including this one about white men. @HARK!, when you create a topic in the non-Christian section, you invite all manner of heresy and foolishness into your threads. I suggest, always starting threads in the Christians-only section, if you do not want your threads to be continuously mocked by trolls.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, she is racist/sexist. That's blatantly obvious from her comments on this site, including this one about white men. @HARK!, when you create a topic in the non-Christian section, you invite all manner of heresy and foolishness into your threads. I suggest, always starting threads in the Christians-only section, if you do not want your threads to be continuously mocked by trolls.

I think that dismantled rather than mocked would be better suited in this case.