Trump 'order's all houses of worship open.

[InChrist]

And all those peoe are at risk. Surges are already happening from reopenings. Church is not necessary. People are doing fine with social media alternatives. It puts no one at risk, and is better than nothing.

Actually, hardly any surges are happening. You really have bought into all the fear, which is sad. By now according to all the dire predictions the virus should have spread like wildfire among the crowded homeless populations of major cities, but it hasn’t. And why didn’t we hear about the infection spreading everywhere when all those college kids left the crowded Florida beaches after spring break?

 

[InChrist]

What a silly misuse of a quote. Nobody is "coming for" anybody. What they're trying to do is prevent people from making others sick through reckless behavior. You can still pray and listen to sermons. Why does that require packing into some building like sardines?

People keep bring up the constitution, but would you say the 2nd amendment gives me the right to dance down a busy street while wilding firing a gun up into the air? Does the 1st amendment allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

No one I know of is saying that the 2nd Amendment gives ones the right to shoot a gun in the air or endanger others or the 1st gives one the right to yell “ fire” in a theater, so those comments are irrelevant.

The fact is that most churches have been more than willing and cooperative in being closed and doing things online, but under the current circumstances, it seems it’s time to open up and churches already have plans on place for more services so social distancing can be practiced.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is no more a high risk activity or putting others at risk than going to Walmart, Lowe’s, the grocery store or restaurant.

This is true, but at those places there's at least an attempt to lower risk, such as gloves, masks, spacing, sneeze guards at registers, etc. Also, unlike churches, stores actually provide essentials such as food, medicine, etc. Church isn't a necessity; You can survive without being spoon fed some silly sermon.

 

[Father Heathen]

Actually, hardly any surges are happening. You really have bought into all the fear, which is sad. By now according to all the dire predictions the virus should have spread like wildfire among the crowded homeless populations of major cities, but it hasn’t. And why didn’t we hear about the infection spreading everywhere when all those college kids left the crowded Florida beaches after spring break?

People who think it necessary to stockpile guns aren't in a position to be lecturing others about "fear".

 

[InChrist]

No, we can't hide, that is certainly true. But it is a lot easier to just be careful, if you only think about it a little bit.

This is not going to be like SARS or MERS -- this spreads too easily between people (and now not so much from surfaces as previously thought). This has the potential to kill millions -- and taking a little care could keep hundreds of millions safer until therapies and vaccines are found, if they can be.

I agree, it’s important to be careful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, hardly any surges are happening.

Incorrect.
Coronavirus Cases Surge In Texas Panhandle As State Continues To Reopen
Iran Sees New Surge in Virus Cases After Reopening Country
Hospitals prepare for COVID-19 surge as Minnesota reopens | MinnPost
Rocky Reopening In Mexico As COVID-19 Cases Surge

 

[InChrist]

People who think it necessary to stockpile guns aren't in a position to be lecturing others about "fear".

I don’t stockpile or use guns. You are just making assumptions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree, it’s important to be careful.

Then don't go to church. You.might as well drive 100 MPH to get there of you do. Both are dangerous, both are very reckless.

 

[Curious George]

It is restricted it many cases amd circumstances.

That a right can be restricted does not entail one does not have a right....quite the opposite actually.

 

[Father Heathen]

No one I know of is saying that the 2nd Amendment gives ones the right to shoot a gun in the air or endanger others or the 1st gives one the right to yell “ fire” in a theater, so those comments are irrelevant.

No, it's very relevant. People are claiming that their constitutional rights are being violated by safety protocols. The principle is exactly the same.

The fact is that most churches have been more than willing and cooperative in being closed and doing things online, but under the current circumstances, it seems it’s time to open up and churches already have plans on place for more services so social distancing can be practiced.

People just need to be patent and find something more productive to do with their time. Besides, they can hold their sermons and bible studies via video conferencing. Paint some pictures (they can be of Jesus.) Get a deck of cards and play solitaire.Save the collection plate money and buy a case of beer or something.

 

[Curious George]

What a silly misuse of a quote. Nobody is "coming for" anybody. What they're trying to do is prevent people from making others sick through reckless behavior. You can still pray and listen to sermons. Why does that require packing into some building like sardines?

People keep bring up the constitution, but would you say the 2nd amendment gives me the right to dance down a busy street while wilding firing a gun up into the air? Does the 1st amendment allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

I am not sure if you are interested, but those are actually quite different.

Rights are generally either considered negative or positive. Some would argue that no positive rights exist.

Sidestepping that issue, negative rights are essentially negative rights are those that bar government interference. These are restraints on the government. Rights are not unfettered. Sometimes issues are carved out like slander or incitement. In these cases we are saying that government regulation doesn't interfere with the right at all because the type of speech is not protected. Other times we acknowledge that we are dealing with a protected right but that the government has the sufficient reason to interfere.

The cases you listed are not protected rights. Gathering for worship is definitely not a section that is carved out. Rather this is an instance where the government is definitely infringing on a right, the question then is whether their is a compelling reason and whether the interference is narrowly tailored (assuming strict scrutiny).

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am not sure if you are interested, but those are actually quite different.

Rights are generally either considered negative or positive. Some would argue that no positive rights exist.

Sidestepping that issue, negative rights are essentially negative rights are those that bar government interference. These are restraints on the government. Rights are not unfettered. Sometimes issues are carved out like slander or incitement. In these cases we are saying that government regulation doesn't interfere with the right at all because the type of speech is not protected. Other times we acknowledge that we are dealing with a protected right but that the government has the sufficient reason to interfere.

The cases you listed are not protected rights. Gathering for worship is definitely not a section that is carved out. Rather this is an instance where the government is definitely infringing on a right, the question then is whether their is a compelling reason and whether the interference is narrowly tailored (assuming strict scrutiny).

An Mormons can't have polygamy. Freedom of religion only extends so far. It is not an absolute right.

 

[Curious George]

An Mormons can't have polygamy. Freedom of religion only extends so far. It is not an absolute right.

I think you are confused by my post and what i said.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think you are confused by my post and what i said.

At my age, anything is possible.

 

[Curious George]

At my age, anything is possible.

My post was not in support or opposed to not allowing people to congregate in churches.

My post was not arguing for or against the constitutionality of executive or legislative actions prohibiting church services.

My post was pointing out the nuance in constitutional law and the rights involved.

While polygamy is definitely an interesting case it is simply not an applicable analogy. And even if there are parallels it definitely is not a self evident trump card.

As constitutional rights are important, so too is protecting the health and safety. We can no more dismiss constitutional challenges than we can dismiss concerns over public health and safety.

Comparing polygamy, shooting in public, and "dangerous speech," (though this last bit is interesting because of the case to which it alludes), are bad analogies because they ignore most of the facts on which something like this turns.

Some interesting questions:

Is there a limit to what the government can do to protect the health and safety?

Is it reasonable that different people will come to different conclusions regarding this line?

 

[InChrist]

Then don't go to church. You.might as well drive 100 MPH to get there of you do. Both are dangerous, both are very reckless.

You are free to your opinion, but I don’t think going to a church where precautions and distancing are practices is anymore more reckless than going to Walmart. Anyway, I haven’t gone to church for over two months and don’t go to Walmart.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are free to your opinion, but I don’t think going to a church where precautions and distancing are practices is anymore more reckless than going to Walmart. Anyway, I haven’t gone to church for over two months and don’t go to Walmart.

Church is not necessary. Food is. People in a box--even practicing proper social distancing--is the most ideal setting to spread this. It's been tried, time and time again, and not just with church. People spread it and catch it. There is just ni safe way to do this. Going to restaurants, for the tine being, is selfish recklessness. Going to theatres is selfish recklessness. Going to the beach is selfish recklessness. Going to Church os selfish wrecklessness.
And, keep in mind, its already a fact--not opinion--that places that have reopened are seeing a surge in cases.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe because it is a slippery slope and rights and freedoms are lost in increments. Or certain groups are targeted before others.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller


That is why it is important to defend the rights the Constitution guarantees. Today it may be religious freedom or assembly or a freedom you don’t care about, but tomorrow it will be a constitutional right that hits you more personally.

EVen constitutions allow for extraordinary measures in extreme circumstances. And sensible people can cope with those.

 

[InChrist]

Church is not necessary. Food is. People in a box--even practicing proper social distancing--is the most ideal setting to spread this. It's been tried, time and time again, and not just with church. People spread it and catch it. There is just ni safe way to do this. Going to restaurants, for the tine being, is selfish recklessness. Going to theatres is selfish recklessness. Going to the beach is selfish recklessness. Going to Church os selfish wrecklessness.
And, keep in mind, its already a fact--not opinion--that places that have reopened are seeing a surge in cases.

Yes, food is necessary, but Walmart has a lot more stuff than just food. Why is it okay for hundreds of people to go into corporate Walmart and buy non-food items like shoes, kids clothes or toys, etc. ... but the Main Street shoe or toy store where only one or two customers usually enter at any given time is closed down, likely leading many to go out or business ?
Walmart is box as much as any church. Who are you or any government personnel to decide what is essential or not? Some people may live alone, maybe church is their only connection with others and maybe there are those who still don’t use social media or internet. Many doctors are speaking out about the detrimental effects of the lockdown and the incredible rise of suicide as people can’t deal with the isolation, loneliness and depression. I think you need to step back and look at the big picture of what’s happening here.

 

[InChrist]

EVen constitutions allow for extraordinary measures in extreme circumstances. And sensible people can cope with those.

That’s true, there are emergency situations and that was the case initially with the virus when much was unknown. That is no longer the case. Now the situation is being used and abused by narcissist politicians and sensible people who coped in the beginning are having a very hard time coping when they lose their business, can’t get “ non-essential’ medical treatments and surgeries, or feed their kids.