Trump declares houses of worship immediately "essential" and will enforce

[NotreDame]

Even if it means you become a source of contagion for people you come in contact with outside of your church.

That evidently is an inherent feature of “following his faith.”

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Temporarily restricting where to worship, specifically narrowed to churches and the like, isn’t a restriction to how you worship.

We have an infringement clause on the Second Amendment. I would be surprised if there was not something like that for the First Amendment as far as people right to congregate for various reasons but especially religious ones seeing how that cause was a major point of contention for the founding fathers. Worship is as much public as it is private the Founders especially would have appreciated that seeing how they had no modern interventions to get broadcasts, internet etc. It would be interesting if the Supreme Court would do a ruling on that. Not only would the conservative judges all vote for it, but I think you could easily get a liberal judge or two on that one.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't mind the masks, I just don't believe anyone has the right to tell me I can't go to church. I would attend church in any country, illegal or not.

People all over the world are willing to die for their faith in Christ and to stand upon His Name.. here they cower in fear of an illness that kills fewer people than auto accidents (which killed 1.25 million globally in 2013) which has a definite cure, stop driving and no one will die in auto accidents.

The coronavirus presents no more risk than anything else people do every single day of their lives without concern, and I won't stop meeting with my brothers and sisters in Christ over it. If God takes me then my time was up, at least I spent it in the worship of my Savior.

here they cower in fear of an illness that kills fewer people than auto accidents (which killed 1.25 million globally in 2013)

Seriously? You have to go so low in comparing global deaths to national deaths to make your point. Yes you do, because the national death toll is alarming, 93,000 in 115 days in the U.S.

And you have to go all the way back to a 2013 stat. What a joke.

Here’s some recent data, from the U.S., and I might add from 2019. “In 2019, an estimated 38,800 people lost their lives to car crashes – a 2% decline from 2018 (39,404 deaths) and a 4% decline from 2017 (40,231 deaths).“ Fatality Estimates Those are annual totals.

That’s, that’s ugly. The coronavirus has more than doubled annual deaths by car accidents and did it in 90 days to 115 days for the years of 2017 to 2019.

But by all means, continue to trivialize a death toll over 93,000 in defending your faith. I’m sure that just makes people feel all warm and fuzzy about the message.

The coronavirus presents no more risk than anything else people do every single day of their lives without concern

And this is factually false. The highly infectious nature of this virus affects its “risk” analysis, and we know, from the facts, facts you aren’t aware of, this virus spreads easily and in need unprecedented speed, especially in settings like a church. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

Those facts make a compelling argument that authorities can, temporarily, “tell you” that church is momentarily closed, and they are justified in doing so.

 

[NotreDame]

We have an infringement clause on the Second Amendment. I would be surprised if there was not something like that for the First Amendment as far as people right to congregate for various reasons but especially religious ones seeing how that cause was a major point of contention for the founding fathers. Worship is as much public as it is private the Founders especially would have appreciated that seeing how they had no modern interventions to get broadcasts, internet etc. It would be interesting if the Supreme Court would do a ruling on that. Not only would the conservative judges all vote for it, but I think you could easily get a liberal judge or two on that one.

Better pray those conservative justices aren’t like Scalia! After all, Scalia penned Employment Division v. Smith, and held a state law or regulation that infringes upon a religious practice or religiously motivated practice is permitted where the law is of general applicability and neutral.

The conservative justices, if they wanted, would have no difficulty looking at the facts, the virus can spread like wild fire in settings like a church, entities like churches, and churches themselves, are closed, and concluding the temporary closure of the churches is permitted.

American jurisprudence has long recognized no right is ever absolute, not speech, not free exercise of religion, not press, or right to bear arms.

Even the justices, in acknowledging the seriousness of the pandemic, has been holding oral arguments by video, with the justices and the parties appearing by video.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

American jurisprudence has long recognized no right is ever absolute, not speech, not free exercise of religion, not press, or right to bear arms.

Well there are a lot of variables. In your favor, India 2 months ago jailed a Sikh Sadu minister because he managed to infect 10,000 of his followers by attending services and did so after he was told to stay home.

But there are lots of variables in how people do things. I know some of the Indians have blessing type practices which can be a lot like laying on of hands etc. and that would be pretty virus transmitting. And Christian Eucharist / Communion services likewise have their problems because of the close contact but many other church services can have social distancing etc. There were church services shut down around Easter where there was extreme social distancing, people were in their own cars which were spaced 6 feet apartment with the windows rolled up and still the services were closed because of the orders which seemed to written to stop your average in person church services. I think the Justices would have no problem standing up to that kind of extremism.

 

[NotreDame]

Try and lock up a bunch of Christians and tell them in person services is a crime and I'll show you how many Christians are in this country by the amount of people willing to be jailed to follow their faith.

This country was built in the premise of the freedom of all men to worship their God. Try it. Come jail me. I'll take it to the Supreme Court.

Have fun with that.

Is there a Biblical passage that says Christians must worship God in structures we identify and call churches? If not, then your repeated stanza of “follow their faith” is perhaps misplaced. Seems to me you are adhering to the Cyprian doctrine,” “Quia salus extra ecclesiam non est,” translated as “outside the church there is no salvation.”

Martin Luther wasn’t a particular fan of this notion. His actions and generally his view was there is salvation outside of church, but not Christ. In other words, brick and mortar houses of worship aren’t essential for salvation, or worship.

And you might not like the outcome at the Supreme Court. The Court has long held no right is ever absolute, not speech, not free exercise of religion, no to bear arms, etcetera. One of the most conservative justices, Justice Scalia, wrote Employment Division v Smith. In this case, Justice Scalia said a law or regulation that burdens a religious practice or religiously motivated practice is permitted when the law is of general applicability and neutral.

Given the facts of how the virus easily spreads in doors and with people who are stationary indoors for an hour or more, and the shutdown orders targets entities of that criteria generally, no concerts, sporting events, weddings, school, graduations, restaurants, bars, gyms, churches and the like, etcetera, is lawful. Churches are not singled out but included with other similarly situated entities. Ergo, any temporary burdening of your religious right is permitted and the states have authority to enforce the shutdown in this pandemic.

 

[Tom 1]

Says if liquor stores and abortion clinics are essential, churches are essential; that we need more prayer, not less.

If churches do open many people will feel obliged to go. Great environment for the virus to spread.

 

[High Fidelity]

If your concerned with illness stay home. It's as simple as that.

No, it isn't as simple as that. Your negligence may lead to others getting sick.

It's like drink driving... if you crash and put your skull through an oak tree, I really couldn't care less. It's the person in the other lane you crash in to and kill that had no say whatsoever in your decision to do so, yet they suffer the consequences of your actions.

If people want to kill themselves by going to church, well, good for them I guess, I won't lose any sleep over that, but the folks they then go on to infect, that isn't right. Nor is it right that healthcare professionals then have to risk their own health and lives to treat someone who is solely responsible for the situation they're in.

It's the epitome of selfishness, arrogance and disregard for the safety and wellbeing of others.

This is essential reading, because it highlights precisely what you and others are doing. It's a lot of things, some of which mentioned above, but it certainly is not a pro-life stance or action, so I hope you aren't lying to yourself, others or your god by claiming to be pro-life despite placing the wider community at risk unnecessarily.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I just don't believe anyone has the right to tell me I can't go to church. I would attend church in any country, illegal or not.

Lovely theatrics. Very bold. So how many illegal church gatherings you have attended so far ?

Let me guess ? Zero ?

Waiting for the another 200 people to gather so you can be part of the mass and perhaps not get locked up or fined ?

And then we talk about Christians getting fed to lions in the same sentence as missing few church services and spending that time watching Netflix and comparing those.
Ridiculous.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Of course it will lead to deaths.

How can groups of people in a confined space not lead to further cases and deaths during a pandemic?

When the infection in question is not one that is dangerous to most people. When most people who catch it never even know they had it.

 

[Kentonio]

No, you'd be cut off from a lot of the social aspect of it, which, is a lot of the point of the whole experience. While people don't have substance dependence here, I do think people depend on that aspect of religion quite a bit.

I get that we're all suffering at least a bit from the lack of normal socialization. It's just I would rather not ignore, or dismiss people when they are telling me what is important to them in a way I can empathize with...

I don’t think people’s needs should just be dismissed out of hand either, but the loss of socialization is the price that literally everyone is paying under lockdown whether they’re religious or not.

 

[Allandavid]

It's not to anyone to tell me how to worship. It's between myself and God and cannot be legislated nor dictated..

If your concerned with illness stay home. It's as simple as that.

If it's so personal, why can't you pray at home? Isn't there a verse in Matthew (I think) that scorns the idea of praying in groups...?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Says if liquor stores and abortion clinics are essential, churches are essential; that we need more prayer, not less.

Proven once again
a President who supports Christian values.
Some people hate that.
Who they working for?
M

 

[High Fidelity]

When the infection in question is not one that is dangerous to most people. When most people who catch it never even know they had it.

Not dangerous to most people. OK. So you're looking at a quarter of a million dead, if you're lucky, so that's an acceptable price to pay so you can go back to church?

 

[Allandavid]

Try and lock up a bunch of Christians and tell them in person services is a crime and I'll show you how many Christians are in this country by the amount of people willing to be jailed to follow their faith.

This country was built in the premise of the freedom of all men to worship their God. Try it. Come jail me. I'll take it to the Supreme Court.

Have fun with that.

You do realise that the virus doesn't care a fig for your religion....right?

 

[Allandavid]

I don't believe he really thinks he does. It's using it as a hyperbole statement to let everybody know where he stands.

"What he really meant was......"

How many times...?

 

[Allandavid]

Proven once again
a President who supports Christian values.
Some people hate that.
Who they working for?
M

Pffft...!

He "supports Christian values" about as much as I support Tanj's Tigers.......

 

[Mountainmanbob]

it's so simple
who supports abortion and who doesn't?
Trump gets the vote.

Who understands the economy
and who in their basement has no clue
Trump gets the vote.
M

 

[Allandavid]

Well there are a lot of variables. In your favor, India 2 months ago jailed a Sikh Sadu minister because he managed to infect 10,000 of his followers by attending services and did so after he was told to stay home.

Totally untrue....that's really sloppy argumentation...

Two months ago, India's TOTAL INFECTIONS was less than 400....how could someone have been charged with infecting 10,000....??

Some of us can read numbers, you know.......

 

[mama2one]

we've been contacted weekly by one church with links to classes, children's worship, and sermons

school has sent info to all parents
re church that has a weekly food pantry

we're on a local church list since VBS & have received info on drive-in Sundays for local churches

the churches are still busy & working!