snafu Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: As both a scientist and a Christian, I must tell you that, sadly, there are many that fit your last sentence. I am not a big social media guy but I have been on Facebook to defend science since the pandemic started. And it is frightening how many invoke God to deny science. I can’t count how many people refuse to wear masks as the most glaring example because they refuse to accept actual data and fact, and then hide behind religion as a rationale for it, saying that they follow God and not science. It’s sickening. As bad as the deaths and morbidity and economic impact are of the pandemic, what may be the worst consequence is we have so many people who simply, stubbornly refuse to accept facts. God help our society. The issue is with congregants who choose to obey the guidelines. If people don't adhere to the guidelines, then their particular church can rightly be shut down. But you can't come at the issue with the presumption of disobedience.
oldmanfan Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, snafu said: The issue is with congregants who choose to obey the guidelines. If people don't adhere to the guidelines, then their particular church can rightly be shut down. But you can't come at the issue with the presumption of disobedience. Agreed. 1
Niagara Bill Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 4 hours ago, JaCrispy said: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/california-harvest-rock-newsom-supreme-court/index.html I think things like this are what make us the greatest nation in the world- our constitution, which protects individual God given rights over government infringement...just beautiful...power to the people! You mean power to the Pope, power to the Imam, power to the pulpit. People who ate slaves to their religion are still slaves. So now when the preacher tells you to not go into the church is that the freedom you wanted. When your government tells you that a speed limit in the school zone is 20mph, is it your freedom that allows you to break that law.? Do you need approval from your preacher? When you are told not to go into a condemed building to protect yourself do you have the freedom to ignore that posting? The control of people into a church is safety. Nobody is telling you not to pray, or celebrate your religion, just advising you to be safe.
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, SoTier said: Sad but true. Yes it is...but the world has seen far worse, and we will get through it now like others did in years passed...
TBBills Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 I am not religious but seems fine to me since religious people usually don't listen anyway... The irony.
JaCrispy Posted December 4, 2020 Author Posted December 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: You mean power to the Pope, power to the Imam, power to the pulpit. People who ate slaves to their religion are still slaves. So now when the preacher tells you to not go into the church is that the freedom you wanted. When your government tells you that a speed limit in the school zone is 20mph, is it your freedom that allows you to break that law.? Do you need approval from your preacher? When you are told not to go into a condemed building to protect yourself do you have the freedom to ignore that posting? The control of people into a church is safety. Nobody is telling you not to pray, or celebrate your religion, just advising you to be safe. Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional...
Niagara Bill Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... It is not up to the individual to decide not to enter a burning building or condemed building. Education is mandatory, not your decision. The church as a building is the issue, it is burning and anyone who ignores the law and enters into the building must face the law. This is public safety. If the preacher now decides to hold a grand prayer meeting indoors in an arena that hold 50,000 is ok. The preacher declares the building as his church. People can pray when they want, how they want, as many times as they want, but not in a burning building. This is not a freedom issue. The Lord did not want you to pray to golden idols like a building. The Lord does not insist the only place to pray us in a building. That is the money people including that preacher. Jim Jones cult like.
Doc Brown Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 This is a pretty deep thread but if I’m a bar owner I’m starting a church. 1 1 2
WideNine Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 39 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... This is the messy nature of democracies, when are personal liberties allowed to be curtailed and how? There is a concept of greater good and I think that is reflected in laws around speed limits and seat belts and such. Seems silly that we can use religion as a shield against what is widely adopted as a restriction that is good for the health and safety of the broader population. One does not have the right to knowingly trample the rights of others by putting them at risk of harm IMO. China is able to flatten the curve quickly and they have billions of people. They do this because they are not a democracy and they will shoot or imprison you if you disobey a quarantine order. We are not China, democracy is messy because it often relies on people doing the right thing and the smart thing and thinking about how they can help others and be a good citizen of our country. Unfortunately, we lack a lot of those qualities of sober, intelligent, and unselfish action that promotes self-policing and self-control for a shared goal of greater good - especially of late. Re: secularism, I do not think the separation of church and state should be viewed as excising religion from individuals or public display, so I object when those that openly express their faith (I consider humanism and atheism belief systems too) suffer retribution as if they should only be able to practice their beliefs in some kind of basement or in isolation from the public eye. Suppression is not what I believe the intent was of secularism and separation of church and state. The intent was to insulate the laws of our land from religious favoritism and prejudice. That being said I do not think the intent was to allow religions to put other citizens in harm's way. It is an interesting rendering by the Supreme Court. I think Secularism is the tolerant lifeline that humanity needs to adapt to survive and accommodate the plurality of beliefs that individuals may embrace. An example of what happens when secularism is not embraced can be seen with Muslim nations where the concept of theocracies is the norm, where integrating Sharia courts into their constitutions and the laws of the land is the norm. We can watch the net effect of this play out in real time where Turkey was on a stable trajectory under Ataturk's secular reforms only to lose it all under Erdogen and the AKP. As any can see there is inevitably a restriction in personal liberties and other religions and those that practice them are systemically disenfranchised.
Buddo Posted December 5, 2020 Posted December 5, 2020 The whole thing seems a simple crock to me. Nobody is stopping anyone from actually practising their religion. Nobody is persecuting any particular religion. Just about any religion is defined by the act of having 'faith'. 'Faith' is not dependent on the attendance at any church, synagogue or mosque. It isn't dependent on any act of congregation. 3
Nineforty Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 On 12/4/2020 at 4:08 PM, JaCrispy said: Well, this is starting to get a little hyperbolic, and off track...but I will respond, going back to the OP.... I have no problem with the government advising certain safety precautions with regards to going to church...ultimately, however, I think it should be up to the individual to decide for themselves, whether they want to go or not... No one is forcing them to go, and no one should be allowed to be kept from going, if they so choose...And on top of that, no one is forcing those, afraid of the virus, to go out either... Now, if certain pastors or faiths choose not to open their houses of worship, that is their choice and ok too...I have a brother-in-law who is a pastor of a church...their doors have been closed since April, and that’s fine...But I also know of other pastors who have opened their churches...and I think that should be their prerogative, too... And, just for the record, I do not go to church, myself...I haven’t in 20 years...But, still, I see government restrictions on places of worship as unconstitutional... there is a difference between religious freedom and religious privilege. your lack of understanding the difference is comical, mostly due to the fervor with which you speak. the justices no doubt understand this difference but still voted as they did. 3 of which were placed by a treasonous president. You like to say the Russian/Trump connections were a farce. They were not. That's not even getting to China, Israel, UAE, and last, BUT DEFINITELY not least, Saudi Arabia. But I'm getting off topic. ***** you. There, I'm back. 1
JaCrispy Posted December 9, 2020 Author Posted December 9, 2020 10 minutes ago, Nineforty said: there is a difference between religious freedom and religious privilege. your lack of understanding the difference is comical, mostly due to the fervor with which you speak. the justices no doubt understand this difference but still voted as they did. 3 of which were placed by a treasonous president. You like to say the Russian/Trump connections were a farce. They were not. That's not even getting to China, Israel, UAE, and last, BUT DEFINITELY not least, Saudi Arabia. But I'm getting off topic. ***** you. There, I'm back. The beauty of this forum is having passionate and insightful discourse... But I’m curious, how would you define “religious privilege”? I’m not familiar with the term and it would be helpful in me having a better understanding of what you’re referring to...thanks...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 On 12/5/2020 at 8:47 AM, Buddo said: The whole thing seems a simple crock to me. Nobody is stopping anyone from actually practising their religion. Nobody is persecuting any particular religion. Just about any religion is defined by the act of having 'faith'. 'Faith' is not dependent on the attendance at any church, synagogue or mosque. It isn't dependent on any act of congregation. Tolerant. Respectful. Non-judgemental. Nice. 1
Nineforty Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: The beauty of this forum is having passionate and insightful discourse... But I’m curious, how would you define “religious privilege”? I’m not familiar with the term and it would be helpful in me having a better understanding of what you’re referring to...thanks... You feign really well being a reasonable person who would listen to counter arguments. But these past 4 years (And scrolling through your comments/history) have taught me otherwise. Irredeemable. Like my previously favorite Uncle who i told to go to hell. Or a previous best friend. Go to hell. Lines been drawn. You are not worth it. Will try, oh how I try, to focus on the one's worth redeeming. 1
JaCrispy Posted December 9, 2020 Author Posted December 9, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Nineforty said: You feign really well being a reasonable person who would listen to counter arguments. But these past 4 years (And scrolling through your comments/history) have taught me otherwise. Irredeemable. Like my previously favorite Uncle who i told to go to hell. Or a previous best friend. Go to hell. Lines been drawn. You are not worth it. Will try, oh how I try, to focus on the one's worth redeeming. Well, I have to tell ya...I enjoy engaging with people because I like learning points of view I have not heard before... Sure, I have my own set of beliefs...but I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t know everything...and I don’t claim to...nobody does...that’s the beauty of discourse...the opportunity to become more well rounded... In fact, I’ve gone into a conversation with a person, one time, thinking a particular way...And I came out of it with a completely different view point... Thats why, to me, it’s of the utmost importance to try not to insult people, or call names, or swear at people with whom you disagree- you just never know who you could have taught something to, or who you may have turned away... Im sorry you feel the way you do about our discussions...but I respect it...stay safe, my friend...👍 Edited December 9, 2020 by JaCrispy 1
B-Man Posted June 21, 2022 Posted June 21, 2022 Good news. 6 - 3 The Supreme Court issues an important freedom of religion case: "Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause." Here's the opinion, Carson v. Makin. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan and (in part) Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a separate dissenting opinion. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-supreme-court-issues-important.html 1
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2022 Posted June 21, 2022 25 minutes ago, B-Man said: Good news. 6 - 3 The Supreme Court issues an important freedom of religion case: "Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause." Here's the opinion, Carson v. Makin. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and Breyer dissents, joined by Kagan and (in part) Sotomayor. Sotomayor has a separate dissenting opinion. https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-supreme-court-issues-important.html Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State.
B-Man Posted June 21, 2022 Posted June 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. False. Government subsidizing the education of ALL children. But you knew that. (or maybe your bias did blind you) .
ChiGoose Posted June 21, 2022 Posted June 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: False. Government subsidizing the education of ALL children. But you knew that. (or maybe your bias did blind you) . False. The Maine law was structured to ensure that all kids had access to education but prohibited religious schools from their program because they believed taxpayer money subsidizing religious education would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment (which prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of a religion). With this ruling, taxpayer money can now be funneled into religious schools. So taxpayers could now be funding Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or any school that teaches religion. You could potentially set up a school for the Church of Satan and get taxpayer money.
Big Blitz Posted June 21, 2022 Posted June 21, 2022 44 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Government subsidizing religion. So much for separation of Church and State. It subsidizes Fundamental Environmentalism and the Church of the Branch Covidians. Carries out their sacraments..
Recommended Posts