??? Now they want to ban singing and chanting???

[pdudgeon]

This just in from California:
Newsom Bans Singing In Houses Of Worship After Downplaying Spread Of Coronavirus At Protests

Singing and chanting to the Lord has always been a part of worship. In fact, there is a specific book of the Bible (Psalms) dedicated to just that form of worship.

But now in California someone has the brilliant idea to ban all singing and chanting in houses of worship.

Keep praying, keep on singing, keep on chanting!

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is literally freedom of speech. I cannot believe that his goofy order will survive a court challenge.

 

[pdudgeon]

I don't know of any religion worldwide that doesn't sing songs of praise or supplication to it's recognized deity.
The Bible tells us that even the stars sing to God, their creator.

 

[pdudgeon]

denying God the praise that He is due is not reasonable.
Sacrificing church attendance due to illness ( or to care for one who is ill) is already allowed,
and has been before the pandemic.

But that is not the same as willfully closing churches down, and refusing to allow healthy people to gather and worship God.

Singing and the playing of instruments is and always has been a part of the practice of worship, since before the Birth of Christ.

So for any government formed after the Birth of Christ to willfully deny healthy people the right to gather and sing praises to God is quite against any historical precedent.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Face masks should keep most of the droplets from spreading far into the room shouldn't they? You are using masks in church, yes?

Singing with face masks on shouldn't be to difficult one should think. Personally I've lapsed quite badly ever since the closure of our churches so I haven't been to mass more than twice since easter. If I went more frequently I sure would carry a mask though.

Singing is an essential part of our worship so in my opinion it should be allowed even under our circumstances.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Shouting and chanting inches apart from each other in massive protests and you say that's not a risk. While having fifty calm people who can't sing at full volume to save their lives at mass disbursed in a building that was intended for 300 and you say there is no comparison? I'd agree, but in the other direction. It's politically correct to say you can't catch Covid 19 at a protest but you have a huge risk in a church. And I'm just not politically correct to swallow that party line.

I agree. Screaming in someone's face--even outdoors--is a huge risk factor. These are hypocritical times.

 

[pdudgeon]

Basically anything that the Dem's approve of remains open. Anything they disapprove of is shut.
It's the Democrats and their elected leaders that are pushing all of the riots which expose people to the virus.
So they approve of the riots, where people crowd together, cause destruction, and lawlessness,
but disapprove of fresh air, salt water, and sunlight that are plentiful at the beach.

I haven't seen any riots or looting and destruction happening at the beaches yet, but they remain closed.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Basically anything that the Dem's approve of remains open. Anything they disapprove of is shut.
It's the Democrats and their elected leaders that are pushing all of the riots which expose people to the virus.
So they approve of the riots, where people crowd together, cause destruction, and lawlessness,
but disapprove of fresh air, salt water, and sunlight that are plentiful at the beach.

I haven't seen any riots or looting and destruction happening at the beaches yet, but they remain closed.

Sharp observation, Pam. It's the same wherever you look. Liberals and marxists are frequently using the virus to shut down things they disapprove of, but allow other things to stay open. The only reason the LGBTQ movement cancelled it's parade this year in many countries was due to their own fair of exposure. The governments came of soft against them and they could've pushed this parade-thing through if they wanted to.

That being said, they closed off mosques and synagogues too so at least they're treating all religions equally in most parts of Europe.
We've seen the same authoritarian impulses elsewhere too. The universities has been shut down for the first time since the nazis invaded Europe.

Intellectualism is being held victim to ideology. It's peculiar seeing how kindergartens and elementary schools was allowed to open shortly whereby the university is still closed.
Isn't Covid-19 more likely to spread amongst children than adult men and women at campus?

It doesn't make any sense! It's all part of a scheme I'm sure. Not that the virus itself is harmless, not at all, but the way of using it politically is not coincidental. Liberals and dems see this as a golden opportunity to tighten their grip and its so obvious, but yet most people fail to see it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Basically anything that the Dem's approve of remains open. Anything they disapprove of is shut.
It's the Democrats and their elected leaders that are pushing all of the riots which expose people to the virus.
So they approve of the riots, where people crowd together, cause destruction, and lawlessness,
but disapprove of fresh air, salt water, and sunlight that are plentiful at the beach.

I haven't seen any riots or looting and destruction happening at the beaches yet, but they remain closed.

If rioting moved to beaches, beaches would open up. If rioters started invading churches, churches would not see these attempted restrictions any longer, at least not for rioters.

 

[pdudgeon]

If rioting moved to beaches, beaches would open up. If rioters started invading churches, churches would not see these attempted restrictions any longer, at least not for rioters.

If rioters moved to churches, they would be met with enforced spacing regulations, required to give their name and telephone number, asked the four questions, and required to wear a mask.

I don't think that any rioter would feel compelled to respond to those requirements.

And having refused to comply, then they would be forcefully met in turn by the local Knights, who would defend their parish against the invaders.

Hooray for our Knights!

 

[thecolorsblend]

---SE---

The riots still spread the virus. Somehow, being outdoors doesn't seem to help very much with that.

Worship and riots are both allowed to happen. Or worship and riots are both banned.

Pick one.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The riots still spread the virus. Somehow, being outdoors doesn't seem to help very much with that.

Worship and riots are both allowed to happen. Or worship and riots are both banned.

Pick one.

Being outside walking down a trail and encountering a few handfuls of people over several hours is WAY different than protesters shouting and screaming, often inches apart from each other. Outside is good. Close exposure is the operative concept, and many of the protests were WAY too close for anyone not indoctrinated into political correctness.

As you stated: "Worship and riots are both allowed to happen. Or worship and riots are both banned."

 

[thecolorsblend]

---SE---

And I think Christians have an obligation to stand up when their right to worship is infringed upon, as is happening now. But I'm flexible. I'm willing to compromise.

Ban the riots (or whatever you choose to call them) and ban worship. Otherwise, ban neither.

There's no need for a double-standard; one standard will do just fine.

 

[pdudgeon]

And I think Christians have an obligation to stand up when their right to worship is infringed upon, as is happening now. But I'm flexible. I'm willing to compromise.

Ban the riots (or whatever you choose to call them) and ban worship. Otherwise, ban neither.

There's no need for a double-standard; one standard will do just fine.

I really think that it's very ironic that the rioters want one standard for all, until it doesn't benefit them to have it so.​

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I really think that it's very ironic that the rioters want one standard for all, until it doesn't benefit them to have it so.​

What's new?

 

[chevyontheriver]

There's no need for a double-standard; one standard will do just fine.

And it is so clearly a double standard.

 

[pdudgeon]

I was remembering today that verse from Mathew 26:30
"Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives."
The reference note is to Psalm 113-118.

The last Psalm, number 118, begins and ends with:

"Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good!
His faithful love endures forever."

It's a good song!

 

[zippy2006]

---SE---

Where is the scientific evidence that singing is significantly worse than breathing? That producing a tone when expelling air produces substantially more contagion than expelling air? Even through a mask?

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with your personal opinion is a "science denier" is remarkably silly when you are unable to produce any scientific evidence in favor of your opinion. In that case all you're doing is lying.

 

[pdudgeon]

Where is the scientific evidence that singing is significantly worse than breathing? That producing a tone when expelling air produces substantially more contagion than expelling air? Even through a mask?

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with your personal opinion is a "science denier" is remarkably silly when you are unable to produce any scientific evidence in favor of your opinion. In that case all you're doing is lying.

Case in point:
Most people who sing, don't sing as loudly/forcefully as they do when they shout to be heard.

when singing, good singers seek to blend in, and harmonize with others.
When shouting, it's more important that the message be heard above others who are also shouting.

Shouting is a competition to stand out and be heard above others.
Singing is a contribution to blend in with others.

 

[pdudgeon]

p.s. when you can't hear the person standing in the same pew as you singing,
you're singing too loudly.

and if you can't hear the person standing right next to you shouting, you're
not behaving in a kind manner at all.