|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28665 Posts
On November 27 2020 04:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building. Nobody is saying that socialization isn’t important, they’re saying that during a pandemic indoor crowded socialization isn’t the way to get it. And they’re saying that using religion as a pretext to risk the lives of others so you can keep up your social calendar is bad. People in favour of good public policy keep getting accused of not liking the stuff being sacrificed (in this case in person socialization). It’s nonsense. Nobody is happy we can’t see movies anymore, just like nobody likes recycling or limiting the AC in the summer or flying less on holidays or anything else that scientists ask us to do. If nothing bad would result then all the tree hugging liberals would freely litter, pollute, and so forth. But scientists checked what would happen if we do all that shit and it turns out it’s bad and so now we can’t anymore. We don’t like it anymore than anyone else. We don’t want lockdowns, we don’t want to not see family for the holidays, our favourite restaurants are closing too, it sucks. But we have to do it anyway.
This is such a good and often ignored point. (Although I attached myself more to the climate aspect of it all.)
I see people claim that leftists are using climate change as a tool to enact the societal change they want to enact - but it's just, such a fundamentally flawed way of looking at it. I fucking love travelling, I love eating meat, not having to bother recycling is sweet, cars are obviously more comfortable than busses. But I still haven't flown for two years (and climate change was the primary reason in 2019), my meat consumption is down 80% (granted, I used to work in a meat warehouse and it was absolutely massive before that), I do recycle and I don't own a car. It's not that I want to live like this and I want everybody else to live like this too, it's that I'm making some sacrifices because I consider people making similar sacrifices essential for the future habitability of the planet we live in, and I can't expect others to do what I'm not willing to do myself.
It's the same with all this stuff. I think it's real sad that my grandmom is probably in her final year and that we've had to be really careful with visiting her (I saw her once during summer, couldn't visit during easter, prolly can't have her come during christmas). I'm one of the guys here who loves drinking, dancing and going to big parties - but I haven't done any of that at all during any of the 'covid is big now'-phases. I don't enjoy wearing a mask on the bus, but I still do it. It's not that we are using covid as an excuse to hate religion, it's that there's no reason why religion should qualify as a reason to be exempt from the rules everybody else has to follow. (To be clear - if a restaurant of x size can have 30 people inside, then a church of the same size should be allowed to have the same amount of people. But not more. )
|
United States10155 Posts
Here's my thoughts on this ruling:
While the conservatives have a colorful argument for why the NY restrictions seemed excessive that might impede on the 1st Amendment, they used the idea that Cuomo pulled back a bit as evidence that the orders were excessive in the first place, which justifies their ruling. This is a misleading argument. Government officials take advice and counsel from the public health officials. Perhaps Cuomo realized that the restrictions were too strong, or that public health officials are reacting to more news. Regardless, it is neither the place of the court nor judges to determine if those orders are correct. In the current pandemic, the need for strict scrutiny to place restrictions on churchs/religious services is easily met: Government officials have a strong compelling interest in the protection of public health that extends far beyond the doors of a church. Those individuals who attend services then travel or meet other people who do not attend, and cause the spread to accelerate.
Justice Sotomayor and Kagan get this right. Strict scrutiny has been met, the restrictions are not overbearing of our 1st amendment, and the majority is clearly placing their faith ahead of their role here. The Court should not be here to intervene, they should remand this case until a new order occurs where the District Court would then examine the new facts or new order to determine if there is an excessive burden to religious organizations that does not exist with any other business/area/function. Clearly, this is not the case this time, and ACB's appointment and decision is going to lead to thousands more getting infected because of her overtly devout nature towards her faith.
|
On November 27 2020 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:33 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building. Nobody is saying that socialization isn’t important, they’re saying that during a pandemic indoor crowded socialization isn’t the way to get it. And they’re saying that using religion as a pretext to risk the lives of others so you can keep up your social calendar is bad. People in favour of good public policy keep getting accused of not liking the stuff being sacrificed (in this case in person socialization). It’s nonsense. Nobody is happy we can’t see movies anymore, just like nobody likes recycling or limiting the AC in the summer or flying less on holidays or anything else that scientists ask us to do. If nothing bad would result then all the tree hugging liberals would freely litter, pollute, and so forth. But scientists checked what would happen if we do all that shit and it turns out it’s bad and so now we can’t anymore. We don’t like it anymore than anyone else. We don’t want lockdowns, we don’t want to not see family for the holidays, our favourite restaurants are closing too, it sucks. But we have to do it anyway. To be clear - if a restaurant of x size can have 30 people inside, then a church of the same size should be allowed to have the same amount of people. But not more.
If that is the case, they should also have to comply with the regulations restaurants have to follow to have dinein patrons.
Restaurants here have plexiglass partitions between tables, all tables 2M apart, only people from same household at the same table, etc. If regulations aren't followed, they can be fined or closed down.
If a church puts in comparable levels of protections, then I'm okay with a similar sized building having equal capacity.
|
Norway28665 Posts
On November 27 2020 06:50 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 27 2020 04:33 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building. Nobody is saying that socialization isn’t important, they’re saying that during a pandemic indoor crowded socialization isn’t the way to get it. And they’re saying that using religion as a pretext to risk the lives of others so you can keep up your social calendar is bad. People in favour of good public policy keep getting accused of not liking the stuff being sacrificed (in this case in person socialization). It’s nonsense. Nobody is happy we can’t see movies anymore, just like nobody likes recycling or limiting the AC in the summer or flying less on holidays or anything else that scientists ask us to do. If nothing bad would result then all the tree hugging liberals would freely litter, pollute, and so forth. But scientists checked what would happen if we do all that shit and it turns out it’s bad and so now we can’t anymore. We don’t like it anymore than anyone else. We don’t want lockdowns, we don’t want to not see family for the holidays, our favourite restaurants are closing too, it sucks. But we have to do it anyway. To be clear - if a restaurant of x size can have 30 people inside, then a church of the same size should be allowed to have the same amount of people. But not more. If that is the case, they should also have to comply with the regulations restaurants have to follow to have dinein patrons. Restaurants here have plexiglass partitions between tables, all tables 2M apart, only people from same household at the same table, etc. If regulations aren't followed, they can be fined or closed down. If a church puts in comparable levels of protections, then I'm okay with a similar sized building having equal capacity.
Yeah, I agree with that. Stuff like 'no choir singing' might also make sense as something that targets churches more than other business. (Just like some restaurants have had to close down buffet sections).
|
On November 27 2020 04:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building. Nobody is saying that socialization isn’t important, they’re saying that during a pandemic indoor crowded socialization isn’t the way to get it. And they’re saying that using religion as a pretext to risk the lives of others so you can keep up your social calendar is bad. People in favour of good public policy keep getting accused of not liking the stuff being sacrificed (in this case in person socialization). It’s nonsense. Nobody is happy we can’t see movies anymore, just like nobody likes recycling or limiting the AC in the summer or flying less on holidays or anything else that scientists ask us to do. If nothing bad would result then all the tree hugging liberals would freely litter, pollute, and so forth. But scientists checked what would happen if we do all that shit and it turns out it’s bad and so now we can’t anymore. We don’t like it anymore than anyone else. We don’t want lockdowns, we don’t want to not see family for the holidays, our favourite restaurants are closing too, it sucks. But we have to do it anyway.
Well said. Nearly every teacher I know, including myself, misses having a classroom full of students, misses the social aspect of learning and collaboration and that environment. We wish we could have it back; it's way easier and simpler and probably better for learning. Building that in-person rapport is so important! But we're also adults and we understand that it's simply not in the best interest of students, their families, or anyone else in the school to force full reopenings right now (at least, in New Jersey). Health and safety need to be prioritized above all else. Kids aren't really going to care about the Pythagorean theorem when they find out that they contracted coronavirus from a classmate and just infected their parents.
|
ACB is clearly a religious zealot but this court case is a good ruling.
Religious institutions shouldn't be uniquely limited. The limitations should placed on commercial establishments as well and New York fucked up on that issue.
|
|
|
On November 27 2020 08:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 08:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
ACB is clearly a religious zealot but this court case is a good ruling.
Religious institutions shouldn't be uniquely limited. The limitations should placed on commercial establishments as well and New York fucked up on that issue. Religious institutions should not be uniquely limited due to religion. I think the questions is should they be uniquely limited if they are preforming uniquely bad, which is the case.
Yeah so long as restaurants and bars are open, churches being closed is totally whack. Which places are closed should be purely a function of average particle concentration. Costco should be open. Lots of gyms should be open. Cozy little Italian restaurants should be closed.
|
On November 27 2020 09:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 08:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 27 2020 08:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
ACB is clearly a religious zealot but this court case is a good ruling.
Religious institutions shouldn't be uniquely limited. The limitations should placed on commercial establishments as well and New York fucked up on that issue. Religious institutions should not be uniquely limited due to religion. I think the questions is should they be uniquely limited if they are preforming uniquely bad, which is the case. Yeah so long as restaurants and bars are open, churches being closed is totally whack. Which places are closed should be purely a function of average particle concentration. Costco should be open. Lots of gyms should be open. Cozy little Italian restaurants should be closed.
Gyms are a horrible thing to be open. They are not clean and can spread germs super easily.
That being said, I am moving from CA to UT for 6 months and a part of that is the fact that gyms are closed in CA and open in UT
|
On November 27 2020 11:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 09:29 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 08:19 JimmiC wrote:On November 27 2020 08:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
ACB is clearly a religious zealot but this court case is a good ruling.
Religious institutions shouldn't be uniquely limited. The limitations should placed on commercial establishments as well and New York fucked up on that issue. Religious institutions should not be uniquely limited due to religion. I think the questions is should they be uniquely limited if they are preforming uniquely bad, which is the case. Yeah so long as restaurants and bars are open, churches being closed is totally whack. Which places are closed should be purely a function of average particle concentration. Costco should be open. Lots of gyms should be open. Cozy little Italian restaurants should be closed. Gyms are a horrible thing to be open. They are not clean and can spread germs super easily. That being said, I am moving from CA to UT for 6 months and a part of that is the fact that gyms are closed in CA and open in UT
If masks are mandatory, staff enforce it, and people aren’t touching their mouths and noses (due to wearing a mask) it should be fine. We should be striving to give people every single thing we can give them. so long as it’s a a huge facility like 24 hour fitness and similar mega gyms. If they can show their particle count is low, so be it.
|
On November 27 2020 01:34 NewSunshine wrote:They're religious, so they have rights that we don't. It's that simple. They're free to spread the Coronavirus and get people sick or killed in God's name. It is so decreed by our Christian overlords.
we need to cleanse the world of stupidity.
sorry i deal with many churches and the ones i deal with do it online.
The Supreme Court needs to be neutered.
|
Canada11350 Posts
I find it really absurd that religious people should get to keep performing their extremely dangerous hobby,
This will tell you why you do not understand their motivation. To an nonreligious person who believes their beliefs are untrue, it is a hobby. Some people go for walks or play hockey on Sundays, and some people go to church. But to a devout religious person, their religion is their identity- who they are, and it describes truth to existence itself. And what is at stake- not just this life, but eternity to come. Therefore, putting the determination of how they are to worship in what context into the hands of the government is extremely dangerous to them. It's a particularly bad proposition because once government believes it has that power, it will exercise it again. And if many in government sees your practices as simply a 'dangerous hobby', why ever would they trust government to make good rulings?
See, what it comes down to is- are the religious claims true or not. What is truth? If they aren't true, then it is an extremely dangerous hobby and they are being absurdly entitled. But if they are true then government is interfering with the process that brings people into eternal well being as well as well being in the present. Government cannot possibly rule on these sorts of questions; they were never designed to be, hence separation of church and state. If you listen, they are open to recommendations from the government, but not an enforced mandate. There is no trust that the government will make an informed decision when it is ignorant to spiritual matters. (And the hostile attitude in this thread to religion would only give further evidence that there is no reason to trust an increasingly secular society to determine when the doors of the church ought to be open or not.)
|
I mean, if people want to live somewhere where their religion is prioritized over the government and the welfare of the people they should found or join a religious state where thats the case.
If I considered Magic the Gathering a core part of my identity then would it be fine to have all of the local gamestores be holding their typical friday night magic events, prereleases etc.? Deciding that its important to you doesn't actually mean anything. Its a matter of adaptation or sacrifice in the service of preserving the health of the population during a damn pandemic. Go to Zoom church, or hold a service outside with social distancing, theres not really any compelling excuse to say, "yeah but like I really want to do it and its important to me so the health of everyone else doesnt matter in comparison."
The government should be accommodating to religious matters, but accommodation doesn't mean being subservient, just like we don't let religions do their honor killings here because its bad for people we shouldn't let them do observably dangerous things like holding tight indoors services without masks during a pandemic. There are other options for their religious practices, do those.
|
Canada11350 Posts
Well, again you are comparing religion to hobbies.
Again, it matters what is actually true in regards to spiritual matters. Government isn't in the business of determining this, so will not be able to put the proper weight for consideration. And looking at BC, even when churches observe the rules (under 50, masked while singing, social distancing, cleaning between services, etc) they just got shut down anyways despite there being no publicly released evidence that churches were one of the sources of the latest wave. Once the government believes it has the power, it will do so again and again.
As for Zoom- it can be done for a bit. But speaking as someone who taught middle school online for a couple months and now is back to normal teaching since September, there is simply no substitute to in person learning. And with the rise of substance abuse, depression, contemplation of suicide, social isolation cannot be sustained over the long term for the majority of the population. We are social creatures and I think we are quickly finding just how much that is true.
Comparisons to honour killings is a category error.
|
The hard caps of 10 and 25 on churches did not have corresponding hard caps on commercial areas. Period. It wasn't about an order making stores and churches operate at 25% capacity, it was hard caps on churches that he deigned not to apply to the more secular aspects of American society. Your store is essential, zero limits on people inside, and your church aint. So the "suffer together" or "we're all in this together" left, and "suffer more" or "you need to shoulder a tougher burden, because we view it as less important" came right on in.
And churches should be pissed off at Cuomo for it. They operated for months a 25% and 33% capacity without a single outbreak. Then he comes in unilaterally and singles them out for punishment. His lawyers didn't even try to demonstrate that operation at reduced capacity (in line with other restrictions on other indoor facilities) led to a single outbreak. They brought witness testimony of stores with hundreds of people concurrently shopping for the day.
Also, see Kavanaugh concurrence on "state must justify why houses of worship are excluded" from "a favored class of businesses."
Compare with California, where generally all major indoor areas are shuttered in one zone (including churches), operating at reduced % capacity in another zone (including churches), and less reduced % capacity in another zone (including churches). BAM no argument for being singled out, and it fits within historic government powers in a public health emergency. I see no reason beyond knee-jerk "religion=bad" hot takes to argue this in terms of ACB religious biases ... especially where other cases were cited with churches that failed in their application for relief precisely because the restrictions were neutral.
|
On November 27 2020 17:05 Falling wrote:
Well, again you are comparing religion to hobbies.
Again, it matters what is actually true in regards to spiritual matters. Government isn't in the business of determining this, so will not be able to put the proper weight for consideration. And looking at BC, even when churches observe the rules (under 50, masked while singing, social distancing, cleaning between services, etc) they just got shut down anyways despite there being no publicly released evidence that churches were one of the sources of the latest wave. Once the government believes it has the power, it will do so again and again.
As for Zoom- it can be done for a bit. But speaking as someone who taught middle school online for a couple months and now is back to normal teaching since September, there is simply no substitute to in person learning. And with the rise of substance abuse, depression, contemplation of suicide, social isolation cannot be sustained over the long term for the majority of the population. We are social creatures and I think we are quickly finding just how much that is true.
Comparisons to honour killings is a category error.
What IS true in regards to spiritual matters? Spiritual anything isn't something you can numerically understand, its not scientific in any way, someone can be a Christian in a basically infinite number of ways. You think the 9 people on the Supreme Court are capable of dictating spiritual truths? By this logic churches should be able to do whatever they want because noone can dictate their spiritual truths but them!
Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptists, Church of Latter Day Saints, Methodists, Anglicanism, Lutherism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Calvinism, Quakers, Westboro Baptist, etc. etc. etc.
And thats just the brands of Christianity, considering that there are other religions ranging from Islam to Satanism the idea that the government has to be capable of deciding on some sort of spiritual truth in order to make churches follow some basic rules during a pandemic is absolutely ridiculous.
The pandemic will not last forever, everyone needs to suck it the fuck up and deal with masks and social distancing until the pandemic has reached the appropriate point. Suck it up and enjoy the Lord outdoors with a mask on.
|
Religious gatherings are not at all the same as 'other indoor facilities.' Anecdotal evidence aside, there is significant correlation between church visits and highly increased risk of coronavirus infection. Closing down churches has nothing to do with a 'kneejerk of religion = bad' and everything to do with actually basing your policy on empirical evidence instead of emotion and subjective feelings.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1313/5900759
|
We're arguing different things here, aren't we?
Some are taking about the SC ruling, others why religion shouldn't give you a carte Blanche.
|
I don't really understand why some Christians insist on having major gatherings, when you have passages in the Bible such as Matthew 18:20, where it quite specifically is noted that with gatherings of just two or three, God is with you. Seems pretty perfect for social distancing if you ask me. Unless it is for the social aspect, but then I have a problem differentiating that and going to the theaters or a concert, for the very same purpose.
|
On November 27 2020 17:35 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 17:05 Falling wrote:
Well, again you are comparing religion to hobbies.
Again, it matters what is actually true in regards to spiritual matters. Government isn't in the business of determining this, so will not be able to put the proper weight for consideration. And looking at BC, even when churches observe the rules (under 50, masked while singing, social distancing, cleaning between services, etc) they just got shut down anyways despite there being no publicly released evidence that churches were one of the sources of the latest wave. Once the government believes it has the power, it will do so again and again.
As for Zoom- it can be done for a bit. But speaking as someone who taught middle school online for a couple months and now is back to normal teaching since September, there is simply no substitute to in person learning. And with the rise of substance abuse, depression, contemplation of suicide, social isolation cannot be sustained over the long term for the majority of the population. We are social creatures and I think we are quickly finding just how much that is true.
Comparisons to honour killings is a category error. What IS true in regards to spiritual matters? Spiritual anything isn't something you can numerically understand, its not scientific in any way, someone can be a Christian in a basically infinite number of ways. You think the 9 people on the Supreme Court are capable of dictating spiritual truths? By this logic churches should be able to do whatever they want because noone can dictate their spiritual truths but them! Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptists, Church of Latter Day Saints, Methodists, Anglicanism, Lutherism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Calvinism, Quakers, Westboro Baptist, etc. etc. etc. And thats just the brands of Christianity, considering that there are other religions ranging from Islam to Satanism the idea that the government has to be capable of deciding on some sort of spiritual truth in order to make churches follow some basic rules during a pandemic is absolutely ridiculous. The pandemic will not last forever, everyone needs to suck it the fuck up and deal with masks and social distancing until the pandemic has reached the appropriate point. Suck it up and enjoy the Lord outdoors with a mask on.
Exactly. Just because they very much believe something is true doesn't make it any truer than the other million things other people very much believe to be true.
The only sane position is to treat religion exactly as all other things people do with their free time. That is to say, the state should interfere with it as little as possible, but as much as necessary to ensure the safety of you and other people around you.
If you are into rockclimbing, the state dictates what kind of safety gear can be sold to you, for your own safety. If you are into driving fast cars for a race, the state dictates when and where that is allowed, because it is really dangerous for you and other people around you.
And currently, gathering large amounts of people indoors is dangerous for everyone, and should thus be regulated, no matter if it is religious or not. In normal times, gathering a bunch of people indoors to sing and shout isn't dangerous to anyone, and thus the state shouldn't be involved (beyond maybe fire safety regulations or whatever). Corona times are different times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
