1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured (Religious Freedom) Now a crime in VA to attend services?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Samantha Rinne, Mar 26, 2020.

  1. Samantha Rinne

    Samantha Rinne Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,310
    Ratings:
    +438
    Religion:
    Follower (and Writer) of the Mune Shinri
    In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
    The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
    The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

    Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense

    He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

    Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

    In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

     
    #1 Samantha Rinne, Mar 26, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,701
    Ratings:
    +5,142
    Religion:
    deist
    All Church gatherings have been stopped in the UK. Even weddings and baptisms. Our medical specialists can show that be everybody just staying at home we can reduce the speed that this virus will reach its peak, and in that way our medical services will be able to handle the pandemic at every stage. It also gives us a better chance to find a vaccine, and to reach summertime which might make a difference to the virus.

    If some household are restaurants then they really ought to close their restaurant services.

    The USA does not seem to be 'together' in its determination to cope with this pandemic, which is very sad.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 4
  3. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +700
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why would church gatherings be different to any other gathering? It's common sense, no ones freedom is being taken away.
     
    • Like Like x 11
    • Winner Winner x 4
  4. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    60,410
    Ratings:
    +20,800
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    It equally applies to all and religion needs its special treatments and privileges trimmed. Religious gatheringd are not more important than safety of the collective society as a whole. This is about all of us, not you.
     
    #4 Shadow Wolf, Mar 26, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
    • Like Like x 8
    • Winner Winner x 3
  5. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    43,946
    Ratings:
    +17,677
    Religion:
    Love
    Churches have no right to endanger the mass of people by flagrantly violating pandemic abating measures. Any Church that does that should be shut down totally by force if need be.

    Of course monastic groups that live together are just like an extended family - no one in their right mind is going to tell them all to leave.

    But services etc where our lives are in jeopardy due to the self-centered demand to get their own way and to hell with society's well being? Services when people could and will die because of their actions? Nope. Freedom of religion does not extend to putting a mass of people's lives at risk.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 3
  6. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    It's keeping the rights to keep religious affairs among the religious. It doesn't mean churches will keep their services. It just means it should be at the discretion of the religious authority. The only religion that has a presiding say I know is the pope. Other religions probably don't have a problem with it.

    The law is still law. Just the idea is that because some masses are crucial to the religious practices, the decision shouldn't be dictated by law.

    Giving the church sayso doesn't relieve people from common sense. I'm sure the pope would have discontinued mass even if the government didn't intervene.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +700
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Then I don't understand the problem.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    This would apply to monastics too?

    If safety is over religious masses, why would they be excluded? (Tried to find it online. Sounds interesting topic)
     
  9. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    60,410
    Ratings:
    +20,800
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That the religious arent immune to this dangerous "me me me me me" mentality that has other people paying the consequences. That they don't want to do their part and sit their *** on the couch like we all are needing to do in order reduce the severity of this and not end up like Italy (might be too late by now).
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. epronovost

    epronovost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    793
    Ratings:
    +686
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Public health and safety isn't a strictly religious affair. it's a public affair. Religious people and organisations must submit to public authorities if their practices affect the public' safety or the public sphere. That's why there is zoning rules for churches and prohibitions against a variety of religious practice like ritual sacrifices and cannibalism passing by polygamy and child marriages.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    Giving churches a choice to keep their masses doesn't relieve them from common sense. Religious don't need the law to tell them they may find it useful to alter the services.

    I have a 95% chance most churches would agree anyway. Just I disagree that the law had to do it on the churches behalf....

    But US only said we can't have more than 10 together. Services hold more than that so more than likely it was a common sense choice to cancel churches regardless of if the law intervened or not.
     
    #12 Unveiled Artist, Mar 26, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
  13. epronovost

    epronovost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    793
    Ratings:
    +686
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    In a situation of crisis and emergency it's profoundly stupid to leave this sort of thing to chance and the good will of scrared people who might have little training and knowledge in relevent domains. People and organisation don't die of bruised ego, but htey can die of imprudence and supersticious beliefs abot diseases.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    How so? I'm sure people have common sense if churches had services and people didn't want to stand next to another, they'd pray at home instead.

    The law doesn't need to tell the church "what to do" for the authorities to say it's not in their best interest to hold services. Its more common sense.
     
  15. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    I just thought about the argument, actually. There shouldn't be one. We tend to have an anti-catholic sentiment in the states so I guess (so reading somewhere on a news site) it had two motives instead of one.
     
  16. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    It's an ego thing. The law says only 10 people or less can gather.
    Church authorities know the masses are more than 10
    Church cancels mass
    The law doesn't need to intervene for the church to add to and two and make a decision on its own behalf.

    That's why there shouldn't be a problem. But people have such an anti-religious view of religions that they don't realize people have common sense and aren't forced to go to religious services even if they weren't cancelled.
     
  17. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +700
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'm not American but we have similar restrictions in Australia, it can't be anti-catholic because it applies to every denomination and every other gathering regardless if it is religious or not.

    I just don't understand your argument. It's like complaining that the government won't let churches have a meth lab.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    25,489
    Ratings:
    +8,425
    Some are saying the government should tell religious to not hold services for the safety of the practitioners. I'm saying the law doesn't need to speak on behalf of religions in order for them to do the same on their own behalf.

    Not sure about the meth lab analogy though.
     
  19. epronovost

    epronovost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    793
    Ratings:
    +686
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    What about those people who want to congregate even though it's a bad idea to pray or to maintain a sense of normality or because they think prayers are going to protect them? What about the clerics who think the same way of those practionners? The interdiction isn't made for people who follow the rules and guidelines, it's made for people who don't. That's the case for all rule. Common sense dictate you shouldn't kill people for fun, but the law prohibits it specifically just in case some idiot was to not follow it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. John53

    John53 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    640
    Ratings:
    +700
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Fair enough. I have no problem with it because people are too stupid to do the right thing without being required to.

    Gatherings of more than 10 is illegal, meth labs are illegal. If the government is taking away religious freedom by making churches follow the 10 people rule then aren't they not also taking away their religious freedom by not allowing them to cook meth?
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...