So there has been a battle over allowing people to go to church on easter. most were closed. some had larger than 10 people gatherings (currently the state limit). the governor plans on taking action. the AG does not. you can follow the progress of this with google. take your pick of stories.
overall there is a clear difference in opinion. the governor feels public safety > their constitutional right to gather and practice their religion. the AG disagrees. the state SC agrees with the governor.
where do you fall? ive specifically left out the political leanings of the players, though it wont take a genius to figure that out. shocking, I know.
personally I believe in the constitution. I can see how some see this as just another attack on it. tbh at this point its getting out of hand how often it happens.
however, this is a state of emergency. depending on the degree of the emergency claimed, it could trump peoples rights for limited time. of course no one will like it, but that is what we have allowed to happen to our country. a warning that has existed and dismissed for quite some time.
ultimately im not sure where I land on this. logic dictates that keeping people safe and getting to a point of normalcy is paramount. also logically, at what cost though? what price am I willing to pay for safety and security? im not sure im willing to pay this price.
to clarify, im not religious. I do however protect religious rights, even those I disagree with, at all times.
we should build big mega church in every city including England
We will be just like China not too long from now. So keep bashing China while you still can. America and the rest of the west will follow its lead. There will be no such thing as freedom in this police state.
Some points to consider:
1)
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/coronavirus-vatican-cancels-public-participation-at-popes-easter-events The Pope cancelled public participation, but still held the services.
Why cant we come up with a solution here?
2) the constituition is never suspended.
3) civil liberties was affected and restricted during ww2. Some of our free media and 1st amendment protections came from this time period.
4) why not put everything around temporary legalese? Since it seems this post is more about the overall idea if restricting religious services, and not around the grandstanding of people involved, in kansas, Florida, and other states this has arose...I'll just say, when state government passes these kinds of things down, they are usually wrapped in "temporary orders". Like all of the USA "Stay in Place" orders from their states, most even have order a "emergency declaration".
This is specifically made, in writing and law, to be a temporary measurement. There are stops in place (that cant be skirted by some leading majority), that prevent these orders from becoming ongoing things.
That puts a cork in many of the points put forth by the officials. (A state act cant carry it's way up to federal acceptance...espcially something as big as religious freedom....)
Personally, I dont think people need to "gather" to practice their religion at this moment. If most of us are sacrificing our work, our hobbies, our hangouts with family and friends....then parts of the religious sector can stop trying to promote the very behavior that is swamping the hospitals with sick patients.
And if the one of the largest organized religions can do it, any thing in the states should be ok with it.
The other side of the coin is, if people have been quarantined and healthy then surely healthy people can congregate to thank their God and ask for continued blessings
Also, those who are still working and considered essential can also do so . Telling someone that bagging groceries is more important than their religion is a hard sell, and too much to ask from anyone
That of course overlooks the faith you have in your government, especially when that government doesn't agree.
Risking pointing out the obvious, essential works far more exposed the the virus, specially the medical ones...
Now what you saying is we should mix the most likely to be infected due to their work with the ones we are sure are healthy in one happy place of gathering?
Does sound fun.
I would also wonder why do you still have people bagging groceries, but I've stopped trying to understand some american costumes a long time ago... Around here everyone bags their own crap, and most with bags brought from their home...
As for the clerks in grocery stores, i would very much argue that having food to eat is a tad more important than religion.
But anyways if you still want religious events with public all that much, then add some social distancing to the mix and a few more events spread in the same day with limited attendance, and you could accommodate the same amount of people with far less risk for those attending.
That's kind of the point of religious freedom, our opinion means shit
Not sure how anyone can think working at a grocery store is ok but going to church isn't. It's a logical fallacy. If food was curbside only or delivery only you might have a point, but it is not. And again how do you convince someone who believes that if you can't even convince me.
Now I'm in favor of digital services. That's not what is at stake here though.
I have no issue with people going to congregations because they find it more important than anything else. To those dying i call natural selection.
If you leave alone and don't interact with others other than the religious event, by all means do what you want. If your whole household again goes and does not interact with others other than the religious event, again by all means do what you please.
My issue is with the ones of those who could attend the religious event and then go out and infect others that think otherwise about the religious event importance, a similar situation with the anti vaxxers really.
Your liberty ends where the liberty of others begins.
I disagree, religious freedom is great, but at the moment they want more rights than the average Joe it is wrong.
If they can have their gathering, I should be able to throw a party where hundreds of people are invited, this should be a time where everybody makes an effort and we only do the essential stuff. Here in Spain all religious events with eastern are cancelled, but people are celebrating it from their balconies, a perfect example of how to make the best of this situation of social distancing without the danger of further spreading the virus.
Saying religious gatherings are as essential as shopping for food is flawed.
Pretending that those who work in the medical field aren't putting people at grocery stores in unnecessary risk is flawed, but I don't see a ban on that.
I'm all for using common sense. I'm not up for pretending while rights are put on pause
Again, our opinion of religious gatherings means shit. Especially if you're not supposed to be in contact with those people anyways.
This is why I have an issue. Common sense isn't being applied unilaterally. Anti church people don't care because it doesn't matter to them and view religion as frivolous. It's that mindset that inspired that amendment in the first place, to protect them from you.
Lol, you are reversing the truth, do you know what "essential work" means?
I guess letting people die from hunger is also a solution to stop the virus.
The same people that go these gatherings, will go to these supermarkets to do shopping, so they might actually infect others, that is common sense. So because they want to have their meetings, they eventually put others in danger one way or another.
On the other hand, in my country it is forbidden, what you do is your thing and it won't affect me.
I should have expected as much from someone who claims shopping for food > food for the soul. Kind of demonstrates the lack of understanding that constitution is designed to protect people from
If avoiding the issues I've pointed out is your best effort, then I hope others can be more helpful
Yes it is, if you miss out on shopping for food you die, and you'll survive for years without food for the soul, anyway you can still have food for the soul but not in gatherings.
So the statement shopping for food > food for the soul is indeed correct.
Anyway, I can claim my food for the soul is throwing a party with hundred people or giving a concert, if you have to take account with everybody's need for "food for the soul" you can as well stop the whole lockdown.
Like I said, freedom of religion is good, but at the moment they want more rights than everybody else it is wrong, that is constitutional.
I wonder if we lock someone in a room with the local preacher and another in a different room with food and water instead who would last the longer.
But hey, the first dude and the preacher's soul could go out glowing.
wrong on all accounts.
first, if people are willing to take that risk for their food for the soul, then it clearly means enough to them that you should at least acknowledge your lack of understanding, and more importantly your lack of respect for that. period.
second, going to a party or a concert isn't protected under the constitution. its just not. being able to go to church actually is...
lastly, if your claim is all things be damned in the name of public safety, then explain why you aren't actually advocating for it? why allow medical personnel out in the public after work for any reason? why isn't food pickup or delivery only? points ive made, you have failed to address. almost as if you know we aren't yet expect these people to behave in a manner you aren't expecting others to actually do.
oh that's right, you don't respect their RIGHT to religion because reasons...
keep pretending that concerts and parties are the same thing though. its cute.
personally im all for public safety. im not ok with pretending and then infringing on rights at the same time. watching Muslims, Christians, or whoever be arrested, fine, incarcerated, or worse while we continue to allow far more dangerous aspects of life without question. id say having a doctor or nurse who have clearly stated they are working in less than ideal circumstances to then go into a grocery store for milk far more dangerous than people who have been at home for weeks from sitting in a church pew. that's just me though.
that and I find it odd that religious people are the ones being bothered. you can watch any coverage of any city in almost any part of the world and see people ignoring the warnings. in Kansas I can actually go anywhere I want and chill as long as there isn't more than 10 people there. it doesn't say I cant go from one group of 10 to another all day long though. so the concept of not allowing this there is lacking in common sense.
here in Michigan where the Muslims are being arrested for gathering at mosques, we can at least say its currently illegal to visit someone else at their home. again though I find it odd considering Detroit and the surrounding communities are far from observing this and its not being enforced. I can simply drive to the local food store and see it on the way before potentially being exposed or exposing others while I sort through the fresh veggies, where there is no congregation limit. like wtf?
so if we are to pretend that 50, 100, or more people in a store is ok, then why not a church? this is where this idea about public safety kind of falls apart. id say more people buy food than congregate on sundays.
at first I wasn't really sure where I stood on this. had a conversation with the old man that lives behind me, then a few convos online, and now this thread. pretty sure I know where I stand now, and why. thanks for that at least.
There are plenty of options that religious groups could adopt to maintain their freedom to practice their religion while maintaining health and safety not only of their own congregation, but that of the public at large.
To compare the provision of medicine and food as secondary to religious practice is a bit of a misnomer. Religious freedom like all of the constitution has inherent and implied limits. The US constitution provides for reasonable accomodation, and the SC has held (by way of Scalia) that:
"that Americans do not have a constitutional right to disobey generally applicable laws that were enacted without an intent to discriminate against religion."
Part of what complicates the matter is:
"Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which grant exemptions to people whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by generally applicable laws. In such situations, once the plaintiff demonstrates such a burden, the government must prove that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive way of furthering that interest. Slightly fewer than half the states
have such laws."
"The closing of houses of worship to large gatherings is also the least restrictive way of furthering the compelling interest in stopping or slowing down the spreading of the virus. As the public interest group The Freedom from Religion Foundation
said in a letter to the Governor of Alabama:
“There is no less restrictive way to achieve this interest [stopping the spread of the virus] than prohibiting large gatherings. Viruses do not respect houses of worship, they simply travel from person to person. The more people who gather, the more viruses spread. There is no way to effectively prevent this other than preventing person-to-person contact, so large gatherings must be stopped. Thus, the state has every right to prohibit these services under the current extreme circumstances.”
American Constitution Society
And let's not pretend to ignore these mega church pastors proclamations that this pandemic is god's will for our sins and the only path towards redemption is through going to church, that they have the "cure". They are complicit in exacerbating the issue by seeking profit from hungry souls and putting the rest of us at risk by doing so as they'll still need to go out and get food after congregating.
Well, first off, good thing your constitution is not our constitution then.
As for the for the food being picked up or delivery only, first you would need someone providing those services (than in many places there aren't specially if you go outside a major city (at least around here)) and you would need that service at a cost similar to the regular service (that again, not a reality).
Unlike food for the soul, the medical professionals actually need the real food to live, same as everyone else.
Is it ideal that medical professionals that deal with covid patients to go to grocery stores? Not at all, but a necessity because no one wanted to seemingly deal with the logistics of solving said issues.
I can tell you what was done locally though. Here they reduced the health services staff to bare bones to maintain the influx and split them into more teams, some of each stay at home for 15 days and the others work for 15 days straight, swapping after (or if any of if any of those team members might have been infected). (Doctors in particular in their 15 days at home do continue working via telemedicine though again avoiding both theirs and patients going out for something that can be solved over the phone)
But this is not really a solution that can be applied everywhere, because many places were already working with skeleton crews to start with.
That and also covid is being treated in specially designated areas of the hospital were the staff does not interact with others and most of that particular staff is living for free (and with meals) (although this is not mandatory) in local hotels that were closed and are now being used for their lodging to reduce the chance of them contracting the virus and exposing their families.
Our supermarkets also have limited entry limit so the congregations at fresh vegetables is not really a reality around here. One of the main chains of supermarkets have also designated a specific time set dedicated for health workers alone so (again by their own choice) they could avoid everyone else.
if the state wants to temporarily ban church fine, but people shouldn't be punished for going to or holding services regardless of the ban
the china virus is more dangerous then the flu, but it's not going to kill even 5%. the majority of people have less then 1% chance of dying so kinda overreaching to fine, or throw people in jail for going to church
im starting to suspect the virus has produced a asymptomatic strain, or we overreacted to the virus cause over half the people who get it don't even know they are sick.
i mean 600,000 people in america have tested positive, and only 12,000 are in serious condition. that's extremely lower then we were predicting
1)that's not how this works dude.
Just because 600 people stayed in their homes for 2 weeks, does not imply that they are safe to leave... the virus is still out there, spreading, and we are still in "flatten the curve" mode in the states.
The virus could care less about two weeks.
2) you cant see the difference in a grocery story staying open or an church? We need food, we dont need to assemble for a religion at the moment.
Why? They are literally spreading the virus, under a condition where we are trying to slow its spread.
You have no clue, just like the experts have no clue. Stop trying to purport your opinion into something that our opinions dont matter. Like death rates of a virus.
3rd paragraph is a just a doozy. There are not "strains" like the flu. We are still learning about the virus. And a virus that silently spreads, then kills is much more dangerous than one that spreads and includes a bunch of symptoms.
And over 20k have died...
Here is a good visual of covid:
Gif of deaths of past pandemics