One thing I found weird was that ice cream shops were open where I am, but not opticians. If my glasses break, I need an optician. I can live without ice cream.This is where I have an issue with lock downs. If you are going to mandate a lock down, the only essential things needed are front line type groups. You cant pick and choice one over the other.
“I have heard reports. They don’t use distancing inside the church. They are not wearing masks. Quite frankly we know that a lot of the spread is coming from this,” he said.
That such matters aren’t resolved through sensible discussion seems astounding. That a governor would intentionally risk the ire of a material proportion of the community for no good reason seems astounding.Here in NY Cuomo has already been smacked down by the US Supreme Court twice because his restrictions have been harsher for religious groups. There seems to be a pattern.
Which by definition means that those rules were arbitrary and capricious.When the first restrictions were applied in my jurisdiction, the rules were expressed in very simple terms. It meant that a cathedral and a small church were both limited to the same numbers.
The intention I believe was to be simple, clear and effective. So the rules were not nuanced and carefully tuned to each circumstance. The health authorities were reacting to the urgency of the circumstances, not being vindictive or intentionally harsher towards religious groups. Perhaps in the US motivations are different.Which by definition means that those rules were arbitrary and capricious.
“Limited to X% of capacity” is every bit as simple and clear as “no more than Y number”, and is much more effective in reducing transmission.The intention I believe was to be simple, clear and effective.
Which means that they wouldn’t be effective. Pulling arbitrary head count caps out of some rear end is exactly the wrong thing to do; such capriciousness smacks of totalitarianism and and merely generates widespread contempt for legitimate governmental regulations.So the rules were not nuanced and carefully tuned to each circumstance.
Recent history indicates otherwise, and not just in the US.The health authorities were reacting to the urgency of the circumstances, not being vindictive or intentionally harsher towards religious groups…
It doesn’t being my point.How does that make any sense?
Presumably you have reasons for adopting such a negative interpretation. I can’t help but think there is some correlation between that predisposition and the poor response to the pandemic, and the terrible toll it has taken, in the USA.Recent history indicates otherwise
I’d say that’s fairly universal, although it’s the health authorities here crafting the rules by and large. The mass attendance obligation is a discipline. Our bishops dispensed all but priests early on. They’ve just recently lifted the dispensation because the rules have been eased to the point where with some effort, people should be able to get to a mass.In the US, most politicians see going to church as an optional activity,
That makes for an expensive system!A feature of the US governance system is that private persons and entities are expected to file a court case to protect their rights.
That’s understandable. I’d be surprised if an archbishop found it impossible to communicate with the local authorities other than by filing suit! There’s always the media and usually informal processes - they simply require some goodwill.For the most part, they don’t have a ministry or an agency to complain to or that looks after their interests.
Remember we’re not talking about individuals wanting to discuss the matter with the authorities, but leaders who represent very large constituencies.In the US, filing a lawsuit is often the only way to get the attention of the government, or anyone else, to sit down and talk to you.
I guess my premise is that having to invoke a legal process as the first step does not seem to be a good model. Good for lawyers though.Most legal cases settle after the parties have discussed.