|
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 |
United States43907 Posts
On November 27 2020 15:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.)
There can be no separation in the sense that you’re saying. The constitutional separation is a reference to the church of England, they’re saying the government cannot claim to be divinely appointed, cannot trace it’s authority back to God, and cannot have a state religion. But in matters of human conduct separation isn’t possible, one must be superior, and that’s the state in secular states. If you want your religious practices to take priority then you need to live in a theocracy. The classic example of this is the Mormons with polygamy which was, for centuries, a core part of their religious practice.
Religious freedom is granted within the constraints of the law as issued by the state. They are not separate in the way you are describing. The state is superior, it creates a space in which religion can operate, but allows religion freedom within that space. That’s always what it has meant. That’s why you can’t do honour killings which is, despite your objection, a perfectly good example of a religious practice that runs contrary to public policy.
|
On November 27 2020 18:49 Neneu wrote:
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.
Because a la carte Christianity.
|
One of the big issues revealed by this discussion is that there are increasingly troublesome issues regarding what exactly constitute closely held beliefs; if denominations are given carte blanche authority to self-dictate what the closely held tenets of their faith are and then that mechanism is used to shield churches from otherwise valid laws of the state despite no controlling religious doctrinal authority on the matter, there's very obviously something perverse going on. That's not to say the government should necessarily dig into the authenticity of beliefs (though courts do that routinely when 1st Amendment issues arise), rather that we may need to work on an alternative framework less subject to gamesmenship. What that looks like specifically is a big ask and a test for what functioning pluralism actually looks like.
|
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.
No it doesn't.
It isn't the role of the state to determine the spiritual truth of religion, and the spiritual truth of religion doesn't matter.
Religion is an inherently personal experience and this is why it doesn't (or shouldn't) have epistemic value in public discourse when talking about public policy in a secular state. The nature of religion makes it such that it has no external experiences or evidence (i.e. empirical evidence) or consistent logic to be able to base just and equitable public policy on.
In other words, religion isn't special. Insofar as public policy is (or should be) concerned, religion is no different than a hobby. Saying otherwise gives special rights to people that practice religion while not giving commensurate rights to other individuals, particularly since what is a "religious" practice is essentially determined on a whim. Saying that someone has a "sincerely held belief" is arbitrary and anyone can say it. That phrase should not give someone the unique ability to do something dangerous or discriminatory.
|
|
|
Danglars put it well on the last page. I don't often agree with them so I'm gonna highlight that. Religion doesn't need extra privileges in the sense that gathering in the name of some greater power shouldn't make you exempt from covid restrictions and their consequences, but similarly it shouldn't be a reason to get singled out.
If the issue is singing or social distancing or w/e that can be dealt inside the existing framework. Music and singing can be left out of most gatherings as far as I understand church events, if that is what the key culprit is deemed to be. Social distancing rules and capacity limitations should be the same as in other comparable gatherings. I'm quite surprised this decision in SC went this close even.
Edit: though if the reason for SC intervening is that practicing religion shouldn't be restricted because it is religion, rather than that practicing religion shouldn't be overtly restricted when compared to similar activities without religious component, then it starts to look odd. My legalese isn't good enough to comprehend that, but I read it as at least a few judges taking the view that religious practicing should be pretty much left unrestricted because it is about religion?
|
|
|
On November 27 2020 19:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 15:19 Falling wrote: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.) There can be no separation in the sense that you’re saying. The constitutional separation is a reference to the church of England, they’re saying the government cannot claim to be divinely appointed, cannot trace it’s authority back to God, and cannot have a state religion. But in matters of human conduct separation isn’t possible, one must be superior, and that’s the state in secular states. If you want your religious practices to take priority then you need to live in a theocracy. The classic example of this is the Mormons with polygamy which was, for centuries, a core part of their religious practice.Religious freedom is granted within the constraints of the law as issued by the state. They are not separate in the way you are describing. The state is superior, it creates a space in which religion can operate, but allows religion freedom within that space. That’s always what it has meant. That’s why you can’t do honour killings which is, despite your objection, a perfectly good example of a religious practice that runs contrary to public policy.
I just want to call out this bit of misinformation. The mainstream Mormon church practiced polygamy from its founding in 1830 until publicly renouncing the practice in 1890. To help gain statehood in fact.
|
United States43907 Posts
On November 28 2020 01:59 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 19:56 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2020 15:19 Falling wrote: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.) There can be no separation in the sense that you’re saying. The constitutional separation is a reference to the church of England, they’re saying the government cannot claim to be divinely appointed, cannot trace it’s authority back to God, and cannot have a state religion. But in matters of human conduct separation isn’t possible, one must be superior, and that’s the state in secular states. If you want your religious practices to take priority then you need to live in a theocracy. The classic example of this is the Mormons with polygamy which was, for centuries, a core part of their religious practice.Religious freedom is granted within the constraints of the law as issued by the state. They are not separate in the way you are describing. The state is superior, it creates a space in which religion can operate, but allows religion freedom within that space. That’s always what it has meant. That’s why you can’t do honour killings which is, despite your objection, a perfectly good example of a religious practice that runs contrary to public policy. I just want to call out this bit of misinformation. The mainstream Mormon church practiced polygamy from its founding in 1830 until publicly renouncing the practice in 1890. To help gain statehood in fact.
That’s the point. They left New York because it wasn’t willing to exempt them from the law and founded their own religious state. When that state joined the union they changed their religious practices to comply with the law.
|
There are reasons to single out religion as extra dangerous. The idea that the religion itself can somehow protect against the virus is pretty common.
|
I bet you would have no issues finding yoga classes and so on that teach you their way of spiritual defense.
|
On November 28 2020 03:12 Velr wrote:
I bet you would have no issues finding yoga classes and so on that teach you their way of spiritual defense.
You might, but with religion, a very important premise is often that you are privileged and protected as a follower of that specific branch of religion. If practicing that particular branch is serious health risk of the kind it is supposed to protect against, the whole premise of the religion might fall apart for some practicioners.
|
On November 28 2020 03:42 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2020 03:12 Velr wrote:
I bet you would have no issues finding yoga classes and so on that teach you their way of spiritual defense. You might, but with religion, a very important premise is often that you are privileged and protected as a follower of that specific branch of religion. If practicing that particular branch is serious health risk of the kind it is supposed to protect against, the whole premise of the religion might fall apart for some practicioners.
This is far too general to be accurate, there's differentiation on this point even among followers of the same denomination of Christianity. However, the blame for generalizations like that lies equally with the religious who know better, but do not speak up. There's a population of religious folk that's big enough to meaningfully weigh on the definition of the religion described, yet quiet and uninvolved in public discourse enough to render their views difficult to observe or quantify from the outside looking in.
To put a specific spin on it, the belief you describe, that only followers get to go to heaven or are otherwise blessed in ways non-followers aren't, can be traced to Augustinian predestination (and perhaps back to St. Paul) and has been a source of schism and debate for literally hundreds of years. Today, the push by Pope Francis to reorient the Catholic Church towards a mild universalism and the service of all who need it, believer and non-believer alike, is a good example of how a lot of shorthand descriptions of what religion and/or Christianity are, end up being more inaccurate or misleading than helpful and true.
|
|
|
I just have to point out that one of the equivalencies Danglars points to is campgrounds. You know, those indoor, poorly ventilated areas where hundreds of people loudly exhale next to each other for hours. Oh wait, that's churches. Campgrounds are outdoor areas where people extremely rarely congregate near strangers.
Churches have already shown a wild propensity to disregard any and all more sensible restrictions.
The reason I'm calling it zealotry is the timing of the ruling. The relief the churches were seeking had been granted even before this ruling came : their restrictions were already lightening.
The SC should have just said "there's nothing to rule on now", which is what they normally do in this situation. The ONLY reason to rule the way they did is to prevent future restrictions. They are legislating, not issuing an opinion on a current issue.
Then there is the other timing issue : this is in the midst of a huge spike in covid cases, in fact, on the very day when every scientist is warning will cause a 150-300% increase in cases. This ruling will probably get thousands of people killed.
|
On November 28 2020 04:19 Nevuk wrote:
I just have to point out that one of the equivalencies Danglars points to is campgrounds. You know, those indoor, poorly ventilated areas where hundreds of people loudly exhale next to each other for hours. Oh wait, that's churches. Campgrounds are outdoor areas where people extremely rarely congregate near strangers.
Churches have already shown a wild propensity to disregard any and all more sensible restrictions.
The reason I'm calling it zealotry is the timing of the ruling. The relief the churches were seeking had been granted even before this ruling came : their restrictions were already lightening.
The SC should have just said "there's nothing to rule on now", which is what they normally do in this situation. The ONLY reason to rule the way they did is to prevent future restrictions. They are legislating, not issuing an opinion on a current issue.
Then there is the other timing issue : this is in the midst of a huge spike in covid cases, in fact, on the very day when every scientist is warning will cause a 150-300% increase in cases. This ruling will probably get thousands of people killed.
They ruled because there was nothing stopping Cuomo from putting synagogues back into red zones and thus singling churches out for the most draconian restrictions. The Jews are not obligated to go back to the court every time a government reverses course, they actively need intervention on existing rules that could go back into application. And again, his lawyers had difficulty proving a single outbreak traced to churches at 25% and 33% capacity, so the question of facts and evidence were clearly on the synagogue and churches side.
Big shout out to actually saying the timing of a ruling is proof of individual judges’ religious zealotry. The groups have been litigating for months for their rights, but a quick swap of areas regulated, and suddenly the timing favors the judges and not Jews/Catholics rights being infringed.
|
|
|
I'm wondering what those safety regulations were, that didn't keep them safe... or maybe they just lied and didn't actually follow the regulations?
|
United States10369 Posts
The difference between a place of worship and your average essential store is that a store opens and people can come in and out over time. A church opens for mass on a specific day and time and everyone goes in at once. Pretty significant difference.
|
A store also opens up for people to enter in-person because we haven't invented teleporters yet, and there's literally no other choice because people need food to eat, and if they don't eat they die. Religious activities are mostly social activities. All the churches around me host all their meetings and services online right now. If there is some tangible reason why religious services must be held in person, I'd be willing to listen. As far as I know, there isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
