BREAKING: Supreme Court tosses rulings against churches in Colorado, New Jersey

[zsiga]

I’m not shutting anything down. People should know how the fatal virus works. I think 300,000 deaths just in this country alone should motivate them to do something other than assert their rights.

And let’s remember… with rights come responsibilities. To expose someone to a virus is irresponsible. There is nothing “charitable” about such acts.

 

[ProVobis]

Are you also ready to arrest “law-breaking” Democrat politicians? Or at least fine them?

What’s this have to do with saving lives?

 

[Cathoholic]

I think 300,000 deaths just in this country alone should motivate them to do something other than assert their rights.

I think it is unfair to pretend that they haven’t.

Your premise has the built-in (false) presupposition
that you MUST surrender your rights to Government politicians
in order to help people.

You are mistaken.

 

[Cathoholic]

ProVobis:

I understand the unfairness of it all. But is the only remedy the increase the exposure of the virus in the total system?

Are you also ready to arrest “law-breaking” Democrat politicians? Or at least fine them?

.

What’s this have to do with saving lives?

Well you think about it.

The corona virus is just as infectious for those keeping PROPER distance and taking proper cares at Mass . . . .

. . . As it is with Gavin Newsom at an expensive restaurant maskless, proverbially elbow-to-elbow
with a bunch of bureaucrats at an overpriced high-end restaurant.

The only difference is the ones at Mass are doing the right thing on a natural level AND on a supernatural level.

Newsom is doing the wrong thing on a natural level AND a supernatural level.

The fact that you had to ask, suggests to me something that I am not going to bother to post.

 

[Cathoholic]

Joe Biden videoed running around maskless again just yesterday. (Joe was coughing up a storm several days ago trying to get through an interview. Now the guy next to Joe in the picture below from yesterday tests positive for corona virus.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

@ProVobis. Should Joe be jailed for running around maskless?

 

[vz71]

I am just finding that 10% of a congregation dead from the virus a large number.

Not necessarily.
Many of the pentecostal protestant churches in my area only have 10 to 20 people.
It would not take many to make 10%.

 

[YADA]

Can we and our governors use common sense and science …

Oregon Phase 1 previously allowed 25 people at Mass [or any church] including Ministers regardless of the size of the church building … Thus in the small rural community church I attend that probably holds 75 and would feel crowded could have 25 … while the Cathedral in PDX that holds probably 1000 also could only have 25 people including ministers …

Phase 2 the amount was 50 … no matter the size …

After an earlier SCOTUS decision, the Archbishop and other ministers approached the governor more forcefully and now the ruling is 25% of seating capacity or a maximum of 100 … - now the Archbishop nor any minister wants to put their congregants in jeopardy … this makes far great sense, recognizes the dangers, provides for social distancing and treats religious entities with respect and fairness … I also believe that is was neither fairness nor science that changed … or for that matter any respect for for people of faith … it was the writing on the wall from the SCOTUS … they no longer could treat religious institutions differently and with deliberate animus.

 

[zsiga]

Can we and our governors use common sense and science …

Sure. The limitation is based upon several factors. The available space. The number of people occupying the space. The lack of social distancing. The length of sharing the limited space.

As long as people only endanger themselves - like lack of seat belts, or skydiving, or any other dangerous, but SOLITARY activaties, it is their own business. But to expose others is different.

It is sad that people cannot make rational decisions without being “forced” to do it.

 

[Cathoholic]

It is sad that people cannot make rational decisions without being “forced” to do it.

What kind of “force” did you have in mind?

 

[zsiga]

What kind of “force” did you have in mind?

Forcing people to keep social distancing and covering their upper orifices. But let me come clean. I am not threatened by their behavior. As far as I am concerned, they are adults, who can make bad decisions, and have to live with the consequences. I am only concerned about the ones who will be infected due to their irresponsible behavior.

 

[Cathoholic]

Forcing people to keep social distancing and covering their upper . . .

Bold mine.

Yes, but HOW? What means of “force” did you have in mind??

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It is sad that people cannot make rational decisions without being “forced” to do it.

Well that isn’t going to happen.

 

[vz71]

Bold mine.

Yes, but HOW? What means of “force” did you have in mind??

You know no one will answer that.
All platitudes, no substance.

It sounds good to want action, but doesn’t actually stand scrutiny.

 

[KMC]

I’m not shutting anything down. People should know how the fatal virus works. I think 300,000 deaths just in this country alone should motivate them to do something other than assert their rights.

Its not about people asserting their rights…its about the government suspending their rights…which you don’t seem to have an issue with.

What other rights are you good with the government suspending?

 

[KMC]

First, I will say some prayers for your quick recovery!

Second, in times of crisis is when people need their rights more than ever. (In the US) If the government can suspend the free exercise clause for religion, then why not the right to free speech (since some people might be expressing opinions harmful to the general welfare. Why not suspend the right for assembly and protest? Why not suspend the 4th amendment right and search houses for multiple family gatherings (shown to be risky behavior this year). Why not suspend the right to a speedy trial, since court rooms can be risky places for spreading COVID?

Who gets to decide which rights we lose? Elected leaders who were never given the right to take our rights?

 

[KMC]

I imagine that right can be still restricted in times of warfare or crisis. It’s been restricted before in the US and there are exceptions it does not cover.
[/quote]

To a degree, but there are many issues:

1. restriction of rights is not evenly applied (gatherings of worshippers is not allowed…gatherings of protesters is allow)
2. Those instituting restrictions keep getting caught not following their own restrictions and they don’t get punished (like everyone else)
3. Many restrictions are not science based
4. By law there is a expiration date on restrictions, yet the Michigan governor had to be sued over her unlawful extension

Bottom line, is that here in the US we seem to have a bunch of mini-dictators assuming rights their office does not give them

 

[Cathoholic]

I’ll be praying for your rapid inconsequential recovery (name removed by moderator). I have already begun!

 

[Cathoholic]

And yet their case rate since August remains virtually unchanged despite all of this.

Chile COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

 

[puer.dei]

Those aren’t the only options.