Keep the Churches Open, Kill Those Who Come
I have to hand it to those who practice anti abortion politics. They are skillful at sidestepping their obvious internal inconsistences and practicing political misdirection.
Last week the conservative majority on the Supreme Court overruled a state's directive to stop church services. The reason for not holding church services is to save lives. But, these were not the lives of fetuses, the only lives that are important. If some church members die it really does not matter.
If each church was an island and not one visited the island holding church might make sense. This, of course, is not the case. Church members circulate in the community as much as the rest of us. If they spread the virus in church the rest of us can be infected.
On top of that, there is a finite amount of medical services--a largely inflexible number if doctors, beds and ventilators. When people engage in risky behavior and become sick they use up some of the limited care that is available. All this in the Bible about care for your brother or your neighbor turns out to be ignored.
It's especially bad to see preachers/priests encouraging their members to ignore authorities and attend their church. They are the ones who benefit financially and in status by having people come and pay attention to what they have to say. So much for the "humble" Christian. See, instead, the boisterous and cocky Christian clergy who says, "Look at me. I am too important to be subjected to rules for safety."
I know about how Constitutional rule protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I know also, emergencies can be used as excuses to limit these rights. Some reflection is needed to figure out when these are violated and for what reason.
When we are faced with decisions involving life and death the safety of others needs to be given more than a glance. I think the Supreme Court should have given heavier weight to the safety of the public.
I have to hand it to those who practice anti abortion politics. They are skillful at sidestepping their obvious internal inconsistences and practicing political misdirection.
ReplyDeleteLast week the conservative majority on the Supreme Court overruled a state's directive to stop church services.
>>> You lie about the SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that religious services could not be treated
>>> in a discriminatory manner in relation to other mass gatherings.
The reason for not holding church services is to save lives.
>>> Cuomo's reasons were to discriminate against religions, as the SCOTUS stated.
But, these were not the lives of fetuses, the only lives that are important. If some church members die it really does not matter.
>>> Crazy talk.
If each church was an island and not one visited the island holding church might make sense. This, of course, is not the case. Church members circulate in the community as much as the rest of us. If they spread the virus in church the rest of us can be infected.
>>> Replace the word "church" with "restaurant" or "shopping center". Then think.
>>> People go to Walmart, go to gas station convenience stores, to physical therapists,
>>> strip clubs, etc. Now try thinking again about how you have the First Amendment.
On top of that, there is a finite amount of medical services--a largely inflexible number if doctors, beds and ventilators. When people engage in risky behavior and become sick they use up some of the limited care that is available. All this in the Bible about care for your brother or your neighbor turns out to be ignored.
>>> "Risky behavior", e.g. promiscuity, driving recklessly, flying. Since you haven't been in
>>> a church in recent memory, you would have noticed social distancing and masks.
>>> Now, try thinking again but without your hatred for Christianity and Christ.
It's especially bad to see preachers/priests encouraging their members to ignore authorities and attend their church. They are the ones who benefit financially and in status by having people come and pay attention to what they have to say. So much for the "humble" Christian. See, instead, the boisterous and cocky Christian clergy who says, "Look at me. I am too important to be subjected to rules for safety."
>>> Perhaps it is especially "bad" (a relative term) in your value system, but Americans
>>> disagree with you. Perhaps you should focus on all the hypocritic democrats who issue
>>> executive orders or sermonize to us minions but then frequent hair salons, restaurants,
>>> bars, etc. with no masks and no social distancing. Are they boisterous and cocky?
I know about how Constitutional rule protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I know also, emergencies can be used as excuses to limit these rights. Some reflection is needed to figure out when these are violated and for what reason.
>>> I think the Constitution has no exceptions for what you desire. This is what the SCOTUS
>>> ruled. Reflect.
When we are faced with decisions involving life and death the safety of others needs to be given more than a glance. I think the Supreme Court should have given heavier weight to the safety of the public.
>>> So, now the SCOTUS is wrong but they were correct in Roe v. Wade? The SCOTUS allows
>>> driving, and driving kills people. The SCOTUS allows sex of all kind and people die from
>>> STDs. The SCOTUS allows divorce and people die from suicides resulting from divorce.
>>> If you think people are too stupid to see how you twist your arguments, you will
>>> understand why there are a half dozen people commenting after all these years.
Matt--Anti abortion governors and a majority of the Supreme Court have made a decision that what they consider to be the greater good is served by opening churches, bars and restaurants. Mostly that "greater good" is the economy. There have been and will be lots of child and adult deaths to achieve a better economy.
ReplyDeleteAbortion involves the death of fetuses. When a fetus dies because a woman needs this fetus gone to better her own chance of living, hold onto a job and escape a bad relationship it is a trade off. Even though the fetus is not a human being she goes to some effort to arrange and pay for an abortion. Anti abortion governors don't seem to recognize their life and death calculation is merely a serious version of the not serious one pregnant women make. Then anti abortion rants leave out the preference of God for abortions. He kills more fetuses than women who choose abortion.
Jon, “Keep the Churches Open”
ReplyDelete“While neither [the Agudath Israel of America and Diocese of Brooklyn] is currently in the red or orange zone, the Supreme Court decided to grant the injunction IN CASE the areas return to a heightened level.”(1) So this injunction was a just-in-case ruling. As far as I can tell based on Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.68 Houses of Worship were granted marginally more leniency than other categories on the non-essential list.(2) Bars and restaurants, at the highest level of restrictions, were considered essential only for take out or delivery. (3) It looks like the SCOTUS decision was designed to put Houses of Worship on the essential services list with carte blanche privileges. In other words the conservative court put one up Cuomo’s. So if your in the red zone you can eat and drink (take out or delivery only) then pray assembled in a brick and mortar House of Worship (just in case). Religion in America is slowly losing its juice so a little hypo for temporary pain relief as an homage to the good old days seemed appropriate to some on high.
(1) https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/26/scotus-blocks-cuomos-covid-restrictions-on-church-attendance-in-new-york/
(2) https://esd.ny.gov/cluster-action-initiative-faq
(3) https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026?fbclid=IwAR2mh0PltvwXiLyMERva1N3EM-nh6vYYqCvlzBj0KsdZ24bTJoExAn93Imo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletetsm-- I like you using this handle instead of "Unknown."
Delete"nature kills..."
I was taught God is everywhere present and all powerful. It is taught in Christianity he created the universe and knows every creature. Now you have decided, apparently on your own, that God does not actually control what you call "nature."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm "...killing by human hands is a quite different matter than natural death."
DeleteI have been trying for years to persuade you to enter arguments with a some rigorous and organized way. Alas, I have failed again.
When you make the case killing by human hands is different than natural death are you referring to the death of a rabbit?? Is the death of a rabbit by a hunter some different moral and ethical matter than if the rabbit dies of old age?
Actually you could make this case about the rabbit-- killing by the hunter is a moral matter. It would be done by an assumption. The assumption is the rabbit is a human being.
You are forever making the assumption the fetus is a human being. But, you never state that assumption--you imply it is so obviously true no assumption is needed. The is an error because there is no reason, other than religion, to conclude it is a human being.
If you would assume, as I do, the fetus is part of the woman's body it becomes flesh equal in importance to an appendix. About 800,000 times this year women chose to have abortions. The candidate supporting abortion rights just became President. These statistics mean your view of what the fetus is is far from universal. It is miles from being self evident. That is why you should state your religious views about the fetus before launching into the case it is something different more important than other surgeries.
you should talk about rigorous logic. what you call logical argumentation is little more than poor sophistry (or stupidity). what does killing rabbits have to with humans killing humans. but since you brought it up, here's a thought re bunnies. one should not kill them just for fun, not even wild ones. one should not be cruel to bunnies. think about my dog: when I assumed ownership, I took on an obligation, an obligation to treat her well. ditto for a pet rabbit. but I think that you know that your remark was simply a rhetorical ploy to dodge the real issue at hand. now to the relevant topic: apparently Biden, who fancies himself as the as savior of the Republic, is an authority on the humanity of the human fetus? truth to tell, I doubt that he has ever seriously thought about the matter. or even cares about it. his party loves feticide, so he just goes along. anyway, the fact of disagreement means that there is no truth to be sought?. really? sounds as if we can only agree to disagree? a bleak prospect, that. remember that there was once much disagreement re the morality of slavery. should we then have just given up and let slavery go unchallenged? finally, it is monumentally stupid to claim that a fetus is part of a women's body. any fool can see that it is an entirely separate biological entity. but OK, your ridiculous assertions only help to discredit your pro-abortion fanaticism. have a good evening.
ReplyDeletere. the link; Understanding the creds and inclinations of the author; re. "Religious worship is different--Large numbers... indoors...close together...file in and out in crowds, 90 minute," etc. Is a gross example of conflation, is grossly exagerated, and is dishonest. I am not surprised!
ReplyDeleteYes, there are some that ignorantly defy science, recommendations, and the evidence, BUT there are many churches that practice worship responsibly. For example,, Our church before entering, masks are required, in church with no conversation inside, but not limited outside, but distance requirements followed. . The fellowship hall, Sunday school wings and kitchen are taped off. Every two (2) pews are roped off, and open pews are limited to three, (one on each end, and one in the middle), with the exception of a close family unit, and married couples. Also, not a "(90 minute service), but an abbreviated 45 minute service, instead of the normal one hour, (60) minute. The church is also fumigated on a regular basis to kill lingering virus, if any.
Bulletins are on a table individually taken at entry, and the offerings are collected on the same table with no ushers in attendance upon leaving.
By the way, the offerings have increased quite a bit in spite of it all.
In addition, we have had eight members that have contracted covid. with one age 90 hospitalized. Not one of them got it from church attendance, but from the community at large. One death in the entire county according to MN stats.
Deletehelper--Sounds like your church is following good procedures and only one death in the county is also good. We live in a condo building with 50 units. Some are retired and are here most of the time, some work other places and some are working at their jobs in the building. We have repair people, deliveries, etc. Our manager tries to keep careful track of who in going in and out--masks are required. There is still more risk than living in a house but so far no one in the building has come down with it. It might spread quite a bit. Granddaughter, 22 years old, about 20 minutes away had it. She teaches ballet and wears a mask. But the management of her place did not require masks on the little kids she teaches and she thinks she got it that way. She had a miserable 10 days in her room at home where her young adult sister and parents live. None of them got it. We have a close friend in Fargo, 92 years old, who got it and was able to stay in her room at assisted living. Amazing she made it.
Deletein addition; We have also eliminated sunday school, church luncheons, coffee fellowship, Christmas programs, , chior, and all other functions until the pandemic is over.
Deletehelper--Each of us deals with the problem in our own way. The New York Times today published a survey of 700 epidemiologists asking what they allowed themselves to do during the epidemic. About 90% went on necessary errands since as to the grocery story and pharmacy. Only 4% went to church.
ReplyDeleteThat 96% must have been reading the material of the author of the link, believing it was honest.
DeleteJon; I read the article that contained the 700 epidemiologists. It is clear the concern was the chance of exposure, with no issue on faith or the lack of it. In that, I would agree. At my age, I have not gone too church since March, based only on the chance of exposure, even before, with such stringent rules were adopted or suggested to prevent it. I have not read the admonition to "Go forth and be stupid" in the Bible.
Deletehelper -- You have a smart strategy from my point of view. My thinking is, first, we need to limit exposure. Second, we need to be lucky.
ReplyDelete