We Have the Right to Assemble and Freedom of Religion - Unlawful Arrest of Preacher

[Siete]

attend mass gatherings - make sure the virus stays alive -

THEN F'N BITCH LIKE TEENAGE GIRLS ON THE RAG ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ITS HAVING ON THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

we cant do this anymore -


if rw trumpdrones arent the dumbest sob's on the planet I dont know who is

 

[White 6]

As far as Constitutional law goes it's clear that the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion trumps (pardon the pun) executive orders issued by a governor.

No, it doesn't.

Common sense might dictate staying home but a governor can't supersede the Bill of Rights without declaring martial law.

Governors cannot declare martial law. I suggest you learn what martial law is.

Of course governors can declare martial law in their state.

Martial law in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even if martial law not declared by a govenor, the governor can activate the National Guard to assist if he deems it necessary. It just depends on how much manpower is necessary to put on the street, and how far a governor wishes to go for compliance.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Why do you seem to think that Christians should be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else?

Government in America is supposed to keep their hands off of Religion. That's the 1st Amendment.

Government is also supposed to protect the public's safetly. When Constitutional provisions collide, government has to pick one over the other. In this case, they chose public safety over staying out of religion, in part, since those religious folks can find alternate methods to practice their faith without risking the public's safety.

And to address the Constitution aspects of it- government can only ignore constitutional protections for reasons that narrowly constructed for valid reasons- for example- the government can tell a church it can only have 100 people in the building because of fire regulations- this is an acceptable restriction on the right to assemble because there is a clear public safety reason for it- this is exactly the same.

Now if the government said that it was only closing churches, or only closing houses of worship- and ignoring theaters and stadiums- then there would be a real constitutional issue.

Later on this month, the Jihadi Community celebrate Ramadam. Will the libs have the guts to tell them to cancel their event too?

I have to agree with your sentiment regarding the muslims.....but this controversy is mistakenly being concoted by folks like you into a liberal vs. conservative thing.....not true. Many of us pointing out the foolishness of gathering together in numbers in any kind of setting be it social or religious is overwhelmingly stupid.


What do they even do to celebrate Ramadan? Can't say I know much about the practice of Islam.

Worship is a big part of it and breaking fasts together, daily and at other points, I believe

These same yahoos all over the Christians in church would sing a WHOLE different tunes if it were Muslims being arrested for worshiping believe me

This is no time for if's and but's....it is time for some good common sense.

 

[Syriusly]

Looks like some of our government officials haven't read the Constitution.

---Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne was charged with misdemeanor counts of unlawful assembly---

Florida megachurch pastor arrested for holding services despite health order

A Florida pastor was arrested on Monday for operating a Tampa megachurch in violation of a public health order prohibiting large gatherings in place to stem the spread of the coronavirus. &nbs…

thehill.com

There are exceptions.

Will they make exceptions for the Radical Muslims in a few weeks when their annual Ramadam bullshit comes down?

Of course the exceptions don't apply to Muslims. Why that would be wacist.

Oh they never do, never. Muslims are brown-skinned, they're "diverse" and wear cool clothing.

That's all it takes for most simpleton Leftists to drool all over them.

Did you actually just sit on this board and post "Muslims are brown-skinned"????

Wait wait --- and then immediately follow that sweeping non sequitur generalization with "they're diverse"??

Holy SHIT that just took over first place for stupidest post in recent memory.
Oh no, I gotta bookmark this shit.

You entirely missed that I'm citing reasons WHY BRAIN-DEAD LEFTIST LOVE MUSLIMS but go ahead Pogo knock yourself out

I don't know anyone who is 'brain dead' but as a 'leftist' I no more love or hate Muslims than I do Christians or Jews.

And I expect Americans- regardless of whether they are Muslim, Jewish or Christian or atheists to follow the law and do what they can to protect everyone.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Why do you seem to think that Christians should be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else?

Government in America is supposed to keep their hands off of Religion. That's the 1st Amendment.

Government is also supposed to protect the public's safetly. When Constitutional provisions collide, government has to pick one over the other. In this case, they chose public safety over staying out of religion, in part, since those religious folks can find alternate methods to practice their faith without risking the public's safety.

And to address the Constitution aspects of it- government can only ignore constitutional protections for reasons that narrowly constructed for valid reasons- for example- the government can tell a church it can only have 100 people in the building because of fire regulations- this is an acceptable restriction on the right to assemble because there is a clear public safety reason for it- this is exactly the same.

Now if the government said that it was only closing churches, or only closing houses of worship- and ignoring theaters and stadiums- then there would be a real constitutional issue.

Later on this month, the Jihadi Community celebrate Ramadam. Will the libs have the guts to tell them to cancel their event too?

I have to agree with your sentiment regarding the muslims.....but this controversy is mistakenly being concoted by folks like you into a liberal vs. conservative thing.....not true. Many of us conservatives are pointing out the foolishness of gathering together in numbers in any kind of setting be it social or religious is overwhelmingly stupid.


What do they even do to celebrate Ramadan? Can't say I know much about the practice of Islam.

You are not missing anything....believe me. But there is too much talk about muslims on this thread....especially since i have not heard about them gathering together since this crisis began....but that does not mean it is not happening....perhaps this should be investigated....certainly the ban on such gatherings in numbers should be applied to everyone....not just Christians.

Worship is a big part of it and breaking fasts together, daily and at other points, I believe

These same yahoos all over the Christians in church would sing a WHOLE different tunes if it were Muslims being arrested for worshiping believe me

This is no time for if's and but's....it is time for some good common sense.

 

[Syriusly]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

You do realize that governments have ordered mandatory evacuations for hurricanes before?

Right?

 

[Syriusly]

Coronavirus is being spread by folks who show no symptoms. That means the selfish Trump following morons are spreading their Trump virus to your grocery stores and everywhere else.

The last thing we need is to make this about politics....but that is what the liberals are trying their best to do.

This thread was started by a Conservative- who almost immediately started pivoting to just attacking Democrats and liberals.

Can we agree that there both Conservatives and Liberals who will take any opportunity to make anything about politics and there are also Conservatives and Liberals who actually want to talk about the actual issue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

 

[Gracie]

Anyone who knows anything about this scumbag, Rodney Howard-Brown, knows he should be committed just as much as he should be arrested. And not for staying open during this pandemic so he could hustle more money out of his sheep. He's a fucking loon and a scam artist, not a pastor.

I sure miss the INFORMATIVE button. Why? Cuz this post is INFORMATIVE.
flacaltenn

 

[MacTheKnife]

Looks like some of our government officials haven't read the Constitution.

---Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne was charged with misdemeanor counts of unlawful assembly---

Florida megachurch pastor arrested for holding services despite health order

A Florida pastor was arrested on Monday for operating a Tampa megachurch in violation of a public health order prohibiting large gatherings in place to stem the spread of the coronavirus. &nbs…

thehill.com

There are exceptions.

Will they make exceptions for the Radical Muslims in a few weeks when their annual Ramadam bullshit comes down?

Of course the exceptions don't apply to Muslims. Why that would be wacist.

Oh they never do, never. Muslims are brown-skinned, they're "diverse" and wear cool clothing.

That's all it takes for most simpleton Leftists to drool all over them.

Did you actually just sit on this board and post "Muslims are brown-skinned"????

Wait wait --- and then immediately follow that sweeping non sequitur generalization with "they're diverse"??

Holy SHIT that just took over first place for stupidest post in recent memory.
Oh no, I gotta bookmark this shit.

You entirely missed that I'm citing reasons WHY BRAIN-DEAD LEFTIST LOVE MUSLIMS but go ahead Pogo knock yourself out

I don't know anyone who is 'brain dead' but as a 'leftist' I no more love or hate Muslims than I do Christians or Jews.

th

And I expect Americans- regardless of whether they are Muslim, Jewish or Christian or atheists to follow the law and do what they can to protect everyone.

Exactly

Straw man. I never said the church tried to shut down the government, so arguing against a point I didn't make is a dodge.

No, this is a Dodge. (Though actually, it's some sort of bizarre Alfa_Romeo/Fiat/Mercedes_Benz/Hyundai/Chrysler mongrel.)

View attachment 317970

I said the church deliberately provoked a conflict, and will expand that by saying it's a conflict that never needed to exist at all. Under the circumstances, I don't think the shutdown was illegal at all, although that's very obviously a question the courts will have to weigh in on.

No, it was government that provoked this fight, by illegally using a manufactured crisis as an excuse to blatantly violate the Constitution.

So Donald Trump is using this to blatantly violate the Constitution?

States are making their own decisions on these lockdowns. Here in the Tremendous Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, religious institutions are not subject to the current house arrest.

I notice how you carefully avoided addressing whether Trump is violating the Constitution......

'house arrest'? Hmmmm lets look at what Pennsylvania is doing- I frankly don't know

Guide: Responding to COVID-19 in Pennsylvania

All Pennsylvanians have an important role to play in stopping the spread of COVID-19 and saving lives. Here are resources to help you do your part.

www.pa.gov

Allowable Individual Activities
Individuals may leave their residence ONLY to perform any of the following allowable individual
activities and allowable essential travel.

• Tasks essential to maintain health and safety, or the health and safety of their family or household members (including, but not limited to, pets), such as obtaining medicine or medical supplies, visiting a health care professional, or obtaining supplies they need to work from home.
• Getting necessary services or supplies for themselves or their family or household members, or to
  deliver those services or supplies to others, such as getting food and household consumer
  products, pet food, and supplies necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and essential
  operation of residences. This includes volunteer efforts to distribute meals and other life-sustaining services to those in need.
• Engaging in outdoor activity, such as walking, hiking or running if they maintain social distancing.
• To perform work providing essential products and services at a life-sustaining business (see below for details about life-sustaining business activities).
• To care for a family member or pet in another household.

Are people going to be cited for leaving their homes?
No. People will not be cited for leaving their homes.
Additionally, people are not required to carry written authorization to travel for the purposes allowed under the order.

Hmm doesn't sound like house arrest to me.....

States are making their own decisions- and the pastor that was arrested violated his states restrictions.
[/QUOTE
True but it should be a federal thing.....all states should be required to comply on banning any gathering of more than 10 people be it a family thing, religios event, social gathering ....as in no gatherings whatsoever of large groups.....just common sense.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Anyone who knows anything about this scumbag, Rodney Howard-Brown, knows he should be committed just as much as he should be arrested. And not for staying open during this pandemic so he could hustle more money out of his sheep. He's a fucking loon and a scam artist, not a pastor.

There are too many of those. But we are not arguing people. We are arguing principles of law, hello

The law is being laid down.....in most states i think....but if people had any common sense no law would be required....only stupid people want to participate in big gatherings in these times.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you seem to think that Christians should be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else?

Government in America is supposed to keep their hands off of Religion. That's the 1st Amendment.

Government is also supposed to protect the public's safetly. When Constitutional provisions collide, government has to pick one over the other. In this case, they chose public safety over staying out of religion, in part, since those religious folks can find alternate methods to practice their faith without risking the public's safety.

And to address the Constitution aspects of it- government can only ignore constitutional protections for reasons that narrowly constructed for valid reasons- for example- the government can tell a church it can only have 100 people in the building because of fire regulations- this is an acceptable restriction on the right to assemble because there is a clear public safety reason for it- this is exactly the same.

Now if the government said that it was only closing churches, or only closing houses of worship- and ignoring theaters and stadiums- then there would be a real constitutional issue.

Later on this month, the Jihadi Community celebrate Ramadam. Will the libs have the guts to tell them to cancel their event too?

What do they even do to celebrate Ramadan? Can't say I know much about the practice of Islam.

Worship is a big part of it and breaking fasts together, daily and at other points, I believe

These same yahoos all over the Christians in church would sing a WHOLE different tunes if it were Muslims being arrested for worshiping believe me

Possibly. My position is the same no matter what the gathering in question is.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

There is no merit for anyone holding gatherings of over 10 people unless they practice social distancing.

 

[Polishprince]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

There is no merit for anyone holding gatherings of over 10 people unless they practice social distancing.

The Last Supper had 13 men at that gathering, and that was during a major Leprosy Pandemic.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after posibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

You used the word 'ridiculous' that is exactly what you are....no common sense...pathetic.

I do not know your i.q. and following this thread I have noted it is not about intelligence....or mental retardation....it is about stupidity and it is more proof that there is no remedy for stupidity.....but the remedy for those attending big gatherings in these times....is quite simply ....jail time. That would shut it all down quickly. These morons go on and on about their personal liberty being violated....but I gurantee not one of them would be willing to go to jail to back up their ridiculous position on this matter.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Anyone who knows anything about this scumbag, Rodney Howard-Brown, knows he should be committed just as much as he should be arrested. And not for staying open during this pandemic so he could hustle more money out of his sheep. He's a fucking loon and a scam artist, not a pastor.

There are too many of those. But we are not arguing people. We are arguing principles of law, hello

There really is no basis for a argument...it is quite simple....the President in a time of a National Emergency can issue executive orders of any nature....including banning all gatherings in order to enhance National Security......that is what many miss....it is a matter of National Security.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

There is no merit for anyone holding gatherings of over 10 people unless they practice social distancing.

The Last Supper had 13 men at that gathering, and that was during a major Leprosy Pandemic.

Except, of course, that lepers were required by law to completely isolate themselves from other people . . . and it was usually very easy to tell who had it and who didn't.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

There is no merit for anyone holding gatherings of over 10 people unless they practice social distancing.

The Last Supper had 13 men at that gathering, and that was during a major Leprosy Pandemic.

That case has no relevance to the threat we face today. Anyhow two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Not everyone has online access you know.

Computers are limited ,they have not yet found a way to deliver smell waves, so that the congregants can smell the incense. And how will snake handling denominations going to reproduce that experience online

People can burn their own incense and handle their own snakes.

Not necessarily. A lot of landlords prohibit both practices in rental properties. I suppose if the continued ban on Evictions continues indefinitely it might be possible.

Why would those people rent an apartment where they're not free to practice their religion? Sounds like they're not very committed.

Neither incense-burning nor snake-handling are typically part of individual daily devotions. They're both part of group rituals.

But I admire your consistency in never, ever, in any way allowing yourself to even try to understand people you don't agree with.

Stupid people gathering together in mumbers over 10 in these times should not be given any consideration ....they do not deserve it because they are willing to endanger others....for which there is no excuse.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".

It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.

Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Other churches have found a lot of ways to maintain the fellowship and community that is the purpose of attending church, many of them quite creative.

I think anyone who believes that physical presence in a building with other people once a week (or more) regardless of any other considerations is what worshipping God is all about is doing it wrong and missing the entire point of the exercise.

But I don't think the point at all is what we think about how people exercise their religious faith. It's what THEY think and believe. My church is meeting virtually and I personally think that's the right call. But I am not in the position to put that on others' consciences. That's the first point.

My second point, and an important one, is that this going on day after week after possibly, month. A violation of all kinds of individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. For "safety", for "public health". Today it's a virus; next year it's Tornado, Flood and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings. Can't be out on the roads or in stores because you put such and such lives at risk, yadda yadda. Below will be the nincompoop chatterers saying "That's ridiculous" but it's not at all.

Give totalitarians an inch and they will always take 100 miles, every time.

Sorry, but I don't know at all that "gather together in a big group, no matter what" is actually a tenet of any Christian faith I'm aware of. Yes, "forsake not the gathering together" is a tenet of Christianity, but that neither says nor implies that you MUST traipse down to a specific building with a huge crowd of people, particularly when many of them might be highly contagious. I think we can both agree that it's not at all uncommon in pretty much every church for people who are sick to skip service until they're well, particularly if they might be infectious, and no one considers that sinful.

Sorry about this as well, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with anyone's conscience feeling troubled, or anyone genuinely feeling that they're sinning by obeying the quarantine.

As I have already said, I don't disagree about encroaching overreach, and while I disagree with the people who are defending this church/complaining about violation of rights, I do think it's very important that the discussion and debate happen, and that they do so every time the government comes to us and says, "We need to restrict this for this reason". The only proper way to allow for the balancing of everyone's rights against each other is to carefully scrutinize each and every event individually on its own merits.

There is no merit for anyone holding gatherings of over 10 people unless they practice social distancing.

The Last Supper had 13 men at that gathering, and that was during a major Leprosy Pandemic.

Except, of course, that lepers were required by law to completely isolate themselves from other people . . . and it was usually very easy to tell who had it and who didn't.

Good point.....when you look at jewish law you see all kinds of directives on banning or qurantining sick people.