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

[Shadow Wolf]

dine in restaurant

Is that why, here in California, they are all down to take out and delivery only?

 

[Jainarayan]

I never said you weren't concerned and said only in America would be people be more concerned about constitutional rights than people they care for

That's wrong too because an inordinate number of Americans have no idea what the Constitution does or is; they don't know what their rights are and are not, though they say "I know my rights"; they don't know what Marshall [sic] law is (martial law) though they scream all over FB that Gov. X should declare martial law in X state (we can go into why that statement would be laughable if it wasn't so sad).

It seems they'd rather see people endure economic hardship than be allowed to go to work.So the virus isn't spread. I went to the pet store to get dog food and the grooming salon was closed. Those groomers get a minimum wage and live on tips. Every restaurant is closed. Those servers get not even minimum wage and live on tips. They have to buy their own health insurance, as it is. Now how do they pay for it?

Yet people on the interwebz are screaming "lockdown, lockdown!". So, it's actually very few people who care about our rights, the rights that allow us to survive. When a husband loses his job and his health insurance, and his wife and/or kids are in the hospital - for whatever reason - who's going to pay those medical bills, you?

 

[Jainarayan]

And exactly where in the USA are the attendees being made felons and fined huge amounts for going to these places? I

New Jersey is trying to enact that in Lakewood, which has a large population of Orthodox Jews. They are ignoring the governor's EO and still holding large weddings and other gatherings.

 

[dianaiad]

That's wrong too because an inordinate number of Americans have no idea what the Constitution does or is; they don't know what their rights are and are not, though they say "I know my rights"; they don't know what Marshall [sic] law is (martial law) though they scream all over FB that Gov. X should declare martial law in X state (we can go into why that statement would be laughable if it wasn't so sad).

It seems they'd rather see people endure economic hardship than be allowed to go to work.So the virus isn't spread. I went to the pet store to get dog food and the grooming salon was closed. Those groomers get a minimum wage and live on tips. Every restaurant is closed. Those servers get not even minimum wage and live on tips. They have to buy their own health insurance, as it is. Now how do they pay for it?

Yet people on the interwebz are screaming "lockdown, lockdown!". So, it's actually very few people who care about our rights, the rights that allow us to survive. When a husband loses his job and his health insurance, and his wife and/or kids are in the hospital - for whatever reason - who's going to pay those medical bills, you?

Don't look now, but I THINK that was what the bill was that Trump wants, and that the Dems keep wanting to trash by putting stuff in it that has absolutely nothing to do with the virus.

But hey, let's not into a good Trump blame any facts enter in. they aren't any fun.

 

[dianaiad]

Is that why, here in California, they are all down to take out and delivery only?

yep.

No dine in services anywhere.

But I've never 'dined in' anyway, so it makes no never mind to me. Nail salons, though....ouch.

Don't have to worry about church, though. We have a twice a year conference; a real biggie. It hasn't been cancelled, but it's being broadcast without audience and we can watch it at home. Since pretty much every guy has the priesthood, we can worship at home, too; the 'sacrament' (communion) is available from our family members. All the Sunday School lessons are available on line....as they have pretty much always been since the church website went up many years ago, and the only people who are REALLY going to feel the difference are the Nursery Leaders. Nobody has to babysit kids less than 3 years old anymore. So the government can't come after US....which frankly, given history, is highly unusual.

As for other churches, they have to do what their beliefs tell them...and their congregants will have to take the consequences. Yes, the church has the right to do what it needs to do. After that, though, the public can protect itself . Not by fines and felonies for the 'crime of attending church meetings, but to be told that if they attend church, they'll have to take greater precautions than those who don't attend large gatherings do. Like extra quarantine, or something similar.

I have noticed, however, that the VAST majority of theist belief systems understand the problem and are trying to deal with the hygiene and guidlines properly....like mine is. If there are a few who don't, well, Obviously that's not because they are THEISTS, since most theists see the problem and are attempting to ameliorate it. Stupid people are doing this.

Like the toilet paper hoarders. Who are NOT, please pardon me for this, classified as theists.

 

[Jainarayan]

Don't look now, but I THINK that was what the bill was that Trump wants, and that the Dems keep wanting to trash by putting stuff in it that has absolutely nothing to do with the virus.

But hey, let's not into a good Trump blame any facts enter in. they aren't any fun.

I read that the bill passed and is awaiting his signature. Something has to be done. We have a warehouse full of of hourly workers that would be screwed if we shut down (we do have contingency plans). We're deemed an essential business. I'm fortunate to be salaried and able to work from home. The area where I work is Distribution Central, given that all you see are warehouses and tractor trailers. They are almost all hourly workers. Hundreds, if not a few thousand in the county.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for other churches, they have to do what their beliefs tell them...and their congregants will have to take the consequences.

As long as this doesn't include putting the general public's health at risk.

Yes, the church has the right to do what it needs to do.

No one has a right to willfully and purposefully endanger others.

After that, though, the public can protect itself .

We are all in this together. No one is a self-contained island.
This is something that effects all of us. Think about those in programs such as AA or NA. They can't meet, and that support for those in such a vulnerable position is far more important that religious services that are not a matter of life or death. Some people need medical treatments they can't get now. Just "living with it" in regards to having to give up church for awhile isn't going to escalate into further and irreparable damage later. Tons of people now don't have a job. Going to church doesn't pay the bills. It will spread this virus though, and OTHER PEOPLE who aren't members of that congregation will bear the consequences.

 

[John53]

That's wrong too because an inordinate number of Americans have no idea what the Constitution does or is; they don't know what their rights are and are not, though they say "I know my rights"; they don't know what Marshall [sic] law is (martial law) though they scream all over FB that Gov. X should declare martial law in X state (we can go into why that statement would be laughable if it wasn't so sad).

I wasn't trying to imply every American but I can see how you could assume that from what I typed. No idea what the martial law thing is about or who the [sic] is for I don't remember mentioning martial law.

It seems they'd rather see people endure economic hardship than be allowed to go to work.So the virus isn't spread. I went to the pet store to get dog food and the grooming salon was closed. Those groomers get a minimum wage and live on tips. Every restaurant is closed. Those servers get not even minimum wage and live on tips. They have to buy their own health insurance, as it is. Now how do they pay for it?

Maybe they're listening to the health care professionals who have been trying to prevent a monumental health care crisis instead of someone saying we have a malaria drug that will cure it.

Yet people on the interwebz are screaming "lockdown, lockdown!". So, it's actually very few people who care about our rights, the rights that allow us to survive. When a husband loses his job and his health insurance, and his wife and/or kids are in the hospital - for whatever reason - who's going to pay those medical bills, you?

Not really sure what an interwebz is or how it screams. Maybe if you had a national heath care program like Obomacare? Not that it will help much when the hospitals can no longer cope.

 

[InChrist]

Egocentrism is natural and normal in young children. It's part of normal healthy ego development which starts with them defining who they are as a person apart from others, and then it eventually expands to include others as they grow and mature. If allowed to continue to grow, it will expand in ever-wider circles, to where we see everyone in the whole world, regardless of race, creed, religion, culture, age, gender, etc., as extensions of our own self as Jesus taught us, "To love your neighbor as yourself".

Many people get stuck at early developmental stages and spend their entire adult lives at the ego developmental stages of either adocences, or preadolescence. Being an adult biologically, does not mean we are adults emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually. Many are still 8 year olds, thinking mainly of themselves and lacking compassion for others.


I do not agree with your judgement of others here. I'm quite certain if you were to take the time to speak with women who have chosen to abort unwanted pregnancies for a variety of reasons, quite a number of them viewed it as a terrible sacrifice to make for the greater good, for the sake of the child itself being born into a difficult, or impossible situation for the child and all others concerned. In other words, not selfishness, but selflessness to not allow a pregnancy to come to full term where a baby is born into the world.

There are many reasons people do things that we don't understand. A Christian response should be compassion and understanding, not judgement and dismissal based upon one's own situation and ideals.

I am not being judgmental or dismissal. I certainly understand many women find themselves in difficult, even tragic situations with an unplanned pregnancy. I also understand and fully agree for the need of compassion. Nevertheless, the child is is still an “ other life” which I don’t think can legitimately be extinguished for reasons other than to save the mother’s life. No one knows the future, so no one can accurately predict that allowing an unplanned child to live will be negative or that killing would be for the greater good. On the contrary many women in such hard situations having made the decision to respect life and give birth to their child have been so glad they did, as their children have.
Just my thoughts. Although, we probably shouldn’t go on about it as it is veering off topic. Sorry, my fault.

 

[McBell]

Such as supermarkets...which weren't mentioned above, either, I notice.

Supermarkets are considered an essential business.

.........I am rather interested in precisely how, if one makes it a felony to attend such meetings, one can avoid crowding the jails, but hey. Just a side 'hmmmnn....'

I have no idea

However one can shut down these businesses. It is unconstitutional to shut down religions.

If your claim is that it is unconstitutional to shut down gatherings in churches during a declared national emergency, you are just plain, flat out wrong.

That's a problem.

Only in your mind and in the minds of likewise thinking people.
Problem here is that you are allowing your ignorance of the law to outweigh your urge to research the law..

Now my own faith group shut everything down HARD earlier than most, but it does make me wonder; what a glorious excuse a law like this would be in terms of getting rid of churches! BUILT for it!

I do not know of any churches in my area that were still gathering for some time before the lockdown.
Perhaps maybe some of the local Amish churches...

I came up with an idea that doesn't make holding these meetings illegal (we can't) but that provides real, and appropriate, consequences to those who deliberately attend them. How about you come up with a couple more instead of moving the goalposts all the way off the planet?

No need.
The government is perfectly within it legal rights to close church gatherings.
Your opinion otherwise is nothing more than your opinion otherwise.
That you are flat out wrong does not help you.

 

[McBell]

And exactly where in the USA are the attendees being made felons and fined huge amounts for going to these places? I mean, really...that's not even true of California.

I have no idea.
I have not yet seen anything about how the USA is going to go about enforcing it.

If this is your opinion of what SHOULD be, fine..it's an opinion that should be discussed, again IMO, in a thread that isnt completely devoted to church attendance.

No idea what you are talking about.
I merely debunked, refuted, etc. your false claim that churches are being singled out.

In other words, don't move the goal posts.

I have not moved the goal posts.
Looks like that is what YOU are attemp;ting to do right here right now.
I merely debunked, refuted, etc. your false claim that churches are being singled out.

BTW, here in California,, I DARE you to find a Nail Salon, Tattoo studio, dine in restaurant, ect that is open so that people can violate a 10 person law. Since I had a medical appointment yesterday, and another set of medical tests the day before in preparation for a fairly long hospital stay beginning to day (NOT COVID 19 related) The cops would find it difficult to arrest anybody.

Shoot, in the City of Hope they wouldn't so much as be allowed in. No visitors.

So by your own words right here you knew that churches were not being singled out.

So I guess it boils down to you just wanting churches to have yet more special privileges.

 

[dianaiad]

As long as this doesn't include putting the general public's health at risk.

No one has a right to willfully and purposefully endanger others.

We are all in this together. No one is a self-contained island.
This is something that effects all of us. Think about those in programs such as AA or NA. They can't meet, and that support for those in such a vulnerable position is far more important that religious services that are not a matter of life or death. Some people need medical treatments they can't get now. Just "living with it" in regards to having to give up church for awhile isn't going to escalate into further and irreparable damage later. Tons of people now don't have a job. Going to church doesn't pay the bills. It will spread this virus though, and OTHER PEOPLE who aren't members of that congregation will bear the consequences.

You don't actually read what I write, do you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't actually read what I write, do you?

Yes. All I see is a bunch of "us poor Christians, gotta think we're the only onesbeing burdened, and reasonable measures that apply to all are persecutions ofbour faith. Poor us, no special treatments and exemptions from following the law. Jesus said we would be persecuted and martyred in his name."

 

[dianaiad]

Supermarkets are considered an essential business.

So are churches, to many. You might not think so, but others might.

I have no idea


If your claim is that it is unconstitutional to shut down gatherings in churches during a declared national emergency, you are just plain, flat out wrong.

I am? I would be extremely interested in any Supreme Court case or constitutional language that says so.

Only in your mind and in the minds of likewise thinking people.
Problem here is that you are allowing your ignorance of the law to outweigh your urge to research the law..

Well, you just made the claim. Now it is your job to support it with the Constitution and court cases. You know, actual law? I'd be the first to admit that people have passed incredibly stupid laws aimed at religion....You might want to research Missourri Executive Order 44, for instance, which actually remained in force for nearly 140 years. However, I'd be more than willing to look at any precedents you have that say that the government can totally shut down religious meetings in churches during a declared national emergency. That is, completely shut them down and NOT shut down other gatherings of equal size. Without going through so many hoops that the emergency is over before the order is in force.

I do not know of any churches in my area that were still gathering for some time before the lockdown.
Perhaps maybe some of the local Amish churches...

And yet, this thread seems to have intimated that not only do theists ignore the problem, that ALL theists ignore the problem, and that only theists do so. My problem is that it seems that the anti-theist crowd seems to see this situation as a beautiful opportunity to shove their oars in, and punish churches for doing something they don't, actually, do except in rare cases. As for the Amish, I have some problem seeing another group of people who are more 'self quaranteed' than they are, and they meet in their homes, don't they?

No need.

Of course not. Because you, too, see this as a golden opportunity to make the state in charge of the church.

Well, the government has done considerably worse to US, but that doesn't mean its' actions were constitutional. The claim, however, is now yours. You said that the government can cloThe government is perfectly within its legal rights to close church gatherings, where and whenever. Now you get to supply the precedents.

Mind you, given what I know about what the government keeps trying in regard to religion, I won't be utterly surprised if you find some.

Your opinion otherwise is nothing more than your opinion otherwise.
That you are flat out wrong does not help you.

Your opinion that I'm flat wrong doesn't mean I'm flat wrong, either.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes. All I see is a bunch of "us poor Christians, gotta think we're the only onesbeing burdened, and reasonable measures that apply to all are persecutions ofbour faith. Poor us, no special treatments and exemptions from following the law. Jesus said we would be persecuted and martyred in his name."

Well, you have just proven that you don't read what I write.

As it happens, the state CAN limit the size of gatherings, no matter where held or why, but when it comes to churches, it has to jump through a WHOLE bunch of hoops to do so. What I did was give an alternative to those VERY few churches (you are aware that most churches voluntarily closed considerably before anybody started getting legal, right?) which ignore the health and safety rules. IOW, fine, go to your meetings, but when you come out, you go into quarantine for two weeks, and every time you attend, the quarantine is reset. This doesn't affect church rights, and it also protects public health and safety. Wouldn't take long for said churches to volunteer to go electronic.

In other words, you really do not read what I write, and you just proved it. It's "dianaiad wrote it, I'll go attack it because no matter what, she's wrong" Even if you have to make something up..

 

[McBell]

Well, you just made the claim. Now it is your job to support it with the Constitution and court cases. You know, actual law? I'd be the first to admit that people have passed incredibly stupid laws aimed at religion....You might want to research Missourri Executive Order 44, for instance, which actually remained in force for nearly 140 years. However, I'd be more than willing to look at any precedents you have that say that the government can totally shut down religious meetings in churches during a declared national emergency.

Start here
Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264)

 

[McBell]

So are churches, to many. You might not think so, but others might.

What you, I or all them other think is completely irrelevant.
The powers that be say that church gatherings are not necessary.

And yet, this thread seems to have intimated that not only do theists ignore the problem, that ALL theists ignore the problem, and that only theists do so. My problem is that it seems that the anti-theist crowd seems to see this situation as a beautiful opportunity to shove their oars in, and punish churches for doing something they don't, actually, do except in rare cases. As for the Amish, I have some problem seeing another group of people who are more 'self quaranteed' than they are, and they meet in their homes, don't they?

What are you rambling on about here?
Seems you are upset about something and attacking anyone who replies to a post of yours.
I never made any of the claims you are talking about here.
So why are you blowing off at me about them?

Of course not. Because you, too, see this as a golden opportunity to make the state in charge of the church.

At best you are just plain flat out wrong.
At worst you are bold faced liar.
Since I have neither stated nor even implied the above, you have to decide which it is, wrong or liar.

Now how about you stop attacking me for things I have neither said or implied?

 

[dianaiad]

Start here
Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264)

Uhmnn...the one where the Feds have the right to "take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states?" The one that gives the Feds the power to detain the passengers and crew of cruise ships?

Odd, I see no mention of churches in there.

 

[dianaiad]

What you, I or all them other think is completely irrelevant.
The powers that be say that church gatherings are not necessary.

Do they? I hope you have better references for that than the one you gave me earlier.

What are you rambling on about here?
Seems you are upset about something and attacking anyone who replies to a post of yours.
I never made any of the claims you are talking about here.
So why are you blowing off at me about them?

At best you are just plain flat out wrong.
At worst you are bold faced liar.
Since I have neither stated nor even implied the above, you have to decide which it is, wrong or liar.

Now how about you stop attacking me for things I have neither said or implied?

Oh, do learn to read.

 

[Jainarayan]

I wasn't trying to imply every American but I can see how you could assume that from what I typed. No idea what the martial law thing is about or who the [sic] is for I don't remember mentioning martial law.

I wasn't referring to you about martial law. My jab was at the people I see who for one thing call it "Marshall law", which right out of the gate shows they haven't got a clue as to what it is.

Martial law is the state of deploying American military troops on American soil in the event of an extreme situation... foreign invasion, domestic terrorism. The last time martial law was declared was after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Only Congress and/or the President can call for martial law. Moreover, the Posse Comitatus Act severely restricts deploying US military on American soil. If you ever saw the movie White House Down w/ Channing Tatum, it's referred to.

So, all these chuckleheads that shriek that our governor should declare martial law haven't got the slightest idea what they're talking about. A governor can call up the National Guard. But the NG is limited to augmenting and assisting local and state police. They have no actual military power or authority, unless federalized by Congress and/or the President under martial law.The ignorance of their own laws too many American show is both breathtaking and abysmal.

Maybe they're listening to the health care professionals who have been trying to prevent a monumental health care crisis instead of someone saying we have a malaria drug that will cure it.

Nah, the media have been fueling the frenzy. People are just parroting what they hear and read from others. Seriously, it's like everyone is copy/pasting the same blurbs.

Not really sure what an interwebz is or how it screams.

That's my jab at the internet (internet + websites = interwebz). The screaming is figurative... people on the interwebz getting their bowels in an uproar.