Has a permanent closure happened?But permanent closures?
No.
It's still just a threat to the people who consider themselves above the law and morality.
The rest of us can only hope that the threat works and reduces the spread of C19.
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Has a permanent closure happened?But permanent closures?
How are they being singled out?Churches should not be singled out in these kinds of orders and they should be written in generally applicable terms.
You raise an important point. We need to be really careful about scary, extreme headlines and stories and look at what was really said and why.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?
They'll have a job not complying, if they've nowhere to congregate.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.
Funny how religion can fill people with such a sense of entitlement and inculpability.
No, that doesn't make sense.Methinks he was referring to permanently closing churches during the social distancing period. Not even allowing the 10 maximum.
That's what makes sense.
If the operators of a different sort of venue, like a restaurant or movie theater or crack house, flaunted the law this way I'd have no problem with hitting them hard as well. Up to, and including, confiscating their real estate.Churches should not be singled out in these kinds of orders and they should be written in generally applicable terms.
They'll have a job not complying, if they've nowhere to congregate.
And because Blasio is no dummy, common sense dictates that the "permanently" only applies to the duration of the threat. Blasio's problem is in not qualifying his "permanently." Just as in Ezekiel 23:19 where it says
“Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.”
Think there were men whose genitals were as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions?
.
You underestimate the apeal of crying persecutionAccording 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?
Yes, enforce the laws now and don't allow them to congregate,
Hey, it's the Bible that keeps bringing up sex.Gotta admire how you can make almost any topic become sexual.
Guns? Do you really think there will be gun battles with the police over this? Come off it.They might meet in the streets or in people's homes, and might literally fight cops who try to break them up. You're from the UK, right? Maybe you're unfamiliar with the combination of religious fanatacism and guns that we have in America. I say it's better to be pragmatic and not p!ss them off. Yes, enforce the laws now and don't allow them to congregate, but threatening to shut their doors permanently is sure to bring trouble.
You're from GB.Guns? Do you really think there will be gun battles with the police over this? Come off it.
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
Well, you would know, I guess!You're from GB.
You wouldn't get it.
Yes, there are heavily armed Christians here looking for a reason to get Armageddon underway. Believe me when I say this. It's a real threat in the USA.
Tom
Well, you would know, I guess!
But in that case I shall look forward with great amusement to another absurd "only-in-America" shoot-out, this time between the city cops and a bunch of fundie Christians.