Blasio Threatens to Shut Down Religious Buildings Permanently If Churches Do Not Temporarily Close

[whirlingmerc]

My my my
I would recommend a more diplomatic approach

In the context of the corona virus I agree large groups should not meet. Shutting buildings down permanently is a bit of inappropriate overkill don't you think?

Generally applicable justified limitations under appropriate justification is ok

see Al Mohler on Tuesday, March 31, 2020

 

[Nakosis]

My my my

Trump isn't the only one who struggles with diplomacy?

In the context of the corona virus I agree large groups should not meet. Shutting buildings down permanently is a bit of overkill don't you think?

see Al Mohler on Tuesday, March 31, 2020

I don't understand why the churches are being stubborn about this unless the churches are depending on tithing. However folks can still give without coming to the pew.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't understand why the churches are being stubborn about this unless the churches are depending on tithing. However folks can still give without coming to the pew.

Churches should love their neighbors as themselves and comply with reasonable necessary requests

Churches should not be singled out in these kinds of orders and they should be written in generally applicable terms.

Threatening permanent closures is not right and the Mayor should try another tact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My my my
I would recommend a more diplomatic approach

In the context of the corona virus I agree large groups should not meet. Shutting buildings down permanently is a bit of inappropriate overkill don't you think?

Generally applicable justified limitations under appropriate justification is ok

see Al Mohler on Tuesday, March 31, 2020

I don't think he can permanently do that considering our givin rights under the Constitution for free assembly of religion.

He can however temporarily shut them down under emergency provisions which i think its i good idea to do so and reopen them after the crisis is over.

 

[exchemist]

My my my
I would recommend a more diplomatic approach

In the context of the corona virus I agree large groups should not meet. Shutting buildings down permanently is a bit of inappropriate overkill don't you think?

Generally applicable justified limitations under appropriate justification is ok

see Al Mohler on Tuesday, March 31, 2020

According to the account in the Jerusalem Post, he was at pains to stress he was getting excellent cooperation and understanding from almost all religious organisations, but that if a place of worship continues to ignore the instruction, he would reluctantly have to consider further measures, such as fines or even permanently closing the building. (I presume what he means is padlocking the doors until the epidemic is over, though this is not clear.)

That seems to me eminently reasonable. What's the objection?

 

[columbus]

Well, as usual, you're misrepresenting what was actually said.
"But then the mayor, a Democrat in New York City, went on to say, "If that does not happen, they will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently." "

If an organization continues to flaunt the law in a way that could result in huge suffering and death, they risk big penalties.

I don't think it's overkill to make big threats to the organizations that pose big threats to public health.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

I think the time for “diplomacy” has passed. It wouldn’t work anyway.

I would recommend imposing massive fines. Hurt these greedy pastors where they live. How about 1000 dollars per person who attends the service. 100 people show up, 100 000 dollar fine, 1000 people show up, million dollar fine.

And give that money to the healthcare workers.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

According to the account in the Jerusalem Post, he was at pains to stress he was getting excellent cooperation and understanding from almost all religious organisations, but that if a place of worship continues to ignore the instruction, he would reluctantly have to consider further measures, such as fines or even permanently closing the building. (I presume what he means is padlocking the doors until the epidemic is over, though this is not clear.)

That seems to me eminently reasonable. What's the objection?

Why not just enforce the closure more strictly during the pandemic? Threatening to close churches permanently is obviously an irrational response.

 

[columbus]

I don't think he can permanently do that considering our givin rights under the Constitution for free assembly of religion.

Why not?

He isn't threatening anybody with loss of the freedom to assemble. He's threatening their ownership of a piece of real estate.

And he's dealing with some dangerous criminals. People who will deliberately cause damage for their own purposes. It's rather more like confiscating a meth lab, and the property it's on, than religious persecution.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the time for “diplomacy” has passed. It wouldn’t work anyway.

I would recommend imposing massive fines. Hurt these greedy pastors where they live. How about 1000 dollars per person who attends the service. 100 people show up, 100 000 dollar fine, 1000 people show up, million dollar fine.

And give that money to the healthcare workers.

I like your way of thinking here. Brilliant!

 

[columbus]

Why not just enforce the closure more strictly during the pandemic? Threatening to close churches permanently is obviously an irrational response.

How else do you enforce it?

Christians are already squealing "persecution!". Posting cops outside the doors to arrest attendees seems inefficient and irrational. Letting the big wigs claiming that attendance is a right and a duty know that they will suffer financially looks more rational to me.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

As always, Beau says it better than I ever could.

 

[MNoBody]

hmm, give them an inch, they take a mile,..... does that just no longer matter?

 

[Father Heathen]

Funny how religion can fill people with such a sense of entitlement and inculpability.

 

[exchemist]

Why not just enforce the closure more strictly during the pandemic? Threatening to close churches permanently is obviously an irrational response.

As I say, that may be what he actually meant.

But it's perfectly rational. See also Columbus's point. What they are doing amounts to criminal recklessness with other people's lives - and he obviously can't let them get away with that, since all of the discipline everyone else is kind enough to observe would be at risk of collapse without effective enforcement.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why not?

He isn't threatening anybody with loss of the freedom to assemble. He's threatening their ownership of a piece of real estate.

And he's dealing with some dangerous criminals. People who will deliberately cause damage for their own purposes. It's rather more like confiscating a meth lab, and the property it's on, than religious persecution.
Tom

Im sure there's a way to do it as a work around.

Its hard to feel sorry for that church anyways.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Funny how religion can fill people with such a sense of entitlement and inculpability.

People like that need a stern reminder that they are not the light of the world. They are not the salt of the earth.

 

[Father Heathen]

People like that need a stern reminder that they are not the light of the world. They are not the salt of the earth.

They measure goodness not by actual intentions and consequences, but by whether or not "god aproves", and these same people also presume to think and speak for god, sooo... yeah, ugly stuff.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As I say, that may be what he actually meant.

But it's perfectly rational. See also Columbus's point. What they are doing amounts to criminal recklessness with other people's lives - and he obviously can't let them get away with that, since all of the discipline everyone else is kind enough to observe would be at risk of collapse without effective enforcement.

Hmm. I agree with strictly enforcing the closures during the pandemic. But permanent closures? How does that solve anything? It will only p!ss people off, and people who are angry and believe that their rights have been violated will be even less likely to comply with current regulations.

 

[columbus]

People like that need a stern reminder that they are not the light of the world. They are not the salt of the earth.

Perhaps God's new method of smiting, C19, will give the self righteous religionists something to consider.
Perhaps not. There is none so blind as those who will not see.
Tom