Freedom of religion versus Attempted Murder.

https://www.dailypress.com/government/virginia/dp-nw-coronavirus-doj-chincoteague-church-20200505-qky34epxlvg37bqbridggdftwm-story.html

One is tempted to say that whomsoever wants to risk their lives by gathering in the name of God should be allowed (dare I say, encouraged) to do so. But it is not that simple. Any one of the congregates could be a carrier. The larger the gathering it becomes more likely that the virus will be joining the worshipers. So, when it is over, all or some of the people attending could be infected as well. They then go home and about their business and before you can say Bob’s your uncle. more people get sick and more people die. Needless to say the current Theocratic DOJ has joined the defense of this dangerous, anti-social and unchristian behavior.

The defense says just look at all the people in Walmart. I think that misses the mark. Our bodies can only be fed with real food. Our spirits can be served alone or we can be connected to others by technology until the danger is past.

Of course, there are Freedom of Religion questions to address. One of them would be is not protecting religious gatherings a violation of the establishment clause? And what about the right to life of the people who IN PRACTICE not theory will be harmed if people can ignore the science and put others at serious risk?

23 thoughts on “Freedom of religion versus Attempted Murder.

  1. The church in question had 16 people, including church employees, and a chapel with seating for 225.

    If it were sized for 50, 16 might be too many, but in that large a room there is plenty of room for spacing between families.

    Note that other businesses do not have to count employees toward the 10 person limit, and large stores are allowed a larger number of patrons anyway.

    So a case can be made that the church was singled out.

    It’s not so straight forward as you might think.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “So a case can be made that the church was singled out.”

      The church filing the suit was NOT singled out. The order applied equally across the board. If that church had been told that they could not meet while others were allowed then they could claim that. Not the case here.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not that church, churches.

        Only for churches do the employees count toward the total people allowed in.

        A pet groomer with 6 employees and 10 customers would have been OK.

        Like

  2. RE: “Any one of the congregates could be a carrier.”

    If the congregants know this, what’s the problem?

    Like

    1. @Roberts

      What is the problem? It could not be more obvious and I stated it pretty clearly.

      As I hinted, I don’t care much what happens to people so disrespectful of the lives of others but what matters is what they do to others after they leave the service.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. RE: “what matters is what they do to others after they leave the service.”

        What matters to me is your presumption that you know better than the congregants how to deal with the circumstances at hand. I’m not inclined to make the same assumption about you.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          It is not me, you ninny. It is science that tells me, you and the congregants that gathering in groups can be very dangerous to them and to others. Endangering other people without an extremely compelling reason is a bad thing. That makes these church goers very bad people not matter how much they claim to love Jesus.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “It is not me, you ninny.”

            Your support for the spirit of open and inclusive discussion is essential to the success of Tidewater Forum.

            Please review the rules for posting linked at the top of the main page of Tidewater Forum, particularly the warning, “No spam or advertising, be civil, personal insults and ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.”

            Like

        2. RE: “It is science that tells me, you and the congregants that gathering in groups can be very dangerous to them and to others.”

          The science tells me there are low-risk ways for people to gather in groups, should they wish.

          Like

        3. @Roberts

          I responded in kind to your attack on me, so read the admonition for yourself. If I had a nickel for every time one of “you people” has had something to say about me far worse than “ninny” I would have a nice little nest egg.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Absent testing, who knows. Plus we know carriers can be asymptomatic for up to 10 days.

      The whole point of social distancing is that we don’t know who is a carrier.

      So the congregants go home to a neighbor’s house or their own and the grandkids pop in. Or go to Walmart.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. RE: “So the congregants go home to a neighbor’s house or their own and the grandkids pop in. Or go to Walmart.”

        Or maybe they enlist a doctor from the congregation to explain things to them and help make good plans. Why should anyone assume that your hypothetical is the operative one?

        Like

  3. @Tabor
    It is the principle that is in the courts. As it should be. How many lives should have to be sacrificed because these people were unwilling to do the right thing by their fellow human beings?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “How many lives should have to be sacrificed because these people were unwilling to do the right thing by their fellow human beings?”

      How much freedom should good people surrender because you are afraid of the decisions they might make?

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        As much as it takes to end the pandemic. Duh. When exercising your “freedom” kills people you should not do it. That is a pretty basic idea except to self-centered moral pygmies.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “When exercising your ‘freedom’ kills people you should not do it.”

        Of course not. But one needn’t surrender freedom to avoid harming others. Accepting tryany is not a prerequisite for ending a pandemic.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          Tyranny?

          Not too ridiculous. What part of 71,000 deaths and counting every day escapes the stable genius of the Trump cult?

          I would add that your idol Trump is the closest thing to a tyrant this country has ever had with his constant disrespect for the Constitution, constant blocking of Congressional oversight, his attacks on the free press, and one egregious bit of lawlessness and impeachable offenses after the other. But you still love him. Go figure. Maybe your talk of “tyranny” is empty blather?

          Liked by 2 people

      1. So now we know who the real commies are. And how quickly they reveal themselves. Stalin would be proud, eh comrade Paul?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s