Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not to this extreme.Death not a good enough one?
I suppose however, its for the Brits to decide.
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!
Not to this extreme.Death not a good enough one?
The left would love to do that and they have been trying their hardest to make that a reality.
Cops here can & do enter without warrants.But according to the article, it has been made illegal there. But I get that cops can't just enter a home without a warrant. At least not here in the United States.... yet.
Churches are public, so I'd grant government moreFor argument's sake, they sound like they are prepare to clamp down on these disregards of public safety. So far, that hasn't happened here yet, aside from handing out a few fines to these Christian whiners who complain about not being able to go to church together, virus be damned. If people are flagrantly, willfully ignoring safety protocols and putting pubic health at risk, personally, I'd consider that a punishable crime, or at least religiously speaking, certainly it is a sin.
I don't see it as a partisan issue either.Unfortunately, the virus is politically neutral on this issue.
I agree. But there's the question if the risk posedSee my previous post. It is not ok to put peoples lives at risk even in your own home
I agree. But there's the question if the risk posed
is known to be that great for the parties involved.
I'd grant more authority to cops regarding that
in public venues than in private homes.
Government has that problem too.The virus has no respect for private property
Government has that problem too.
Hardly relevant though. The more the numbers, the greater the likelihood of there being asymptomatic people present and the greater the number of people likely to get infected. So twenty people in a private setting poses a greater danger than 10 people in a public setting.Government has that problem too.
Well, we just might have differences of opinionIf illegal activities are happening then i see no problem with that
It was relevant to the particular post I responded to though.Hardly relevant though.
It might.The more the numbers, the greater the likelihood of there being asymptomatic people present and the greater the number of people likely to get infected. So twenty people in a private setting poses a greater danger than 10 people in a public setting.
It was relevant to the particular post I responded to though.
It might.
I don't say that you're wrong.
But I advocate less governmental power in a private home.
I disagree.No such thing as a "private" home
I disagree.
Some are, & some aren't.
I've managed both kinds.
Well, we just might have differences of opinion
about the extent of limits applied to government.
Actually, government has only a tax lien against the property.Unless you have a non-utilities shack in the middle of Yukon territory, your property is owned by the government, through taxes and what else have you. Private ownership is a myth. It's only private if you own all aspects of it,including energy production. Otherwise you are dependent on societies services, which falls under governmental jurisdiction.
I'm in a diplomatic mood.It doesn't happen often, but i think thats an understatement.
I'm in a diplomatic mood.
(Enjoy it while it lasts.)
I suspect that we also disagree about the extent of the risk posed.I appreciate that diplomacy must turn a blind eye to illegal activities including possible murder sometimes?
Which supports my view that the modern-day left and right wing are mirror images of each other.Only this law was passed by the right