(Religious Freedom) Now a crime in VA to attend services?

[Brickjectivity]

If only churches were affected then I'd be concerned there was discrimination.

 

[Nakosis]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

Applies to everyone. The law is not with regard to religion. Religions are free to practice as long as they obey civil laws.
Like Mormons only get one wife despite their religious beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So it is in fact, people like you who are to blame for it.

Some people definitely must read that again. It applies to these "but my trivial things of non-life importance I can't miss" are making it harder on us all.

 

[Windwalker]

No one is stopping us in the Catholic Church from going into church and praying, so the issue of religious freedom really isn't the issue. What is the issue is being sensibly safe so as to help one's self and others from getting sick and possibly dying.

It's that whole "and OTHERS" part that gets in the way for many who think only of what it means to them personally. "And others" does not compute to narcissists. "Why can't I do what I want to, whenever I want to anymore? It's not fair!! Who do I sue? What do you mean others might get sick and die? People die all the time! It's not fair to me!"

 

[QuestioningMind]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand what religious freedom means. Having the freedom to practice your religion does NOT mean freedom to ignore established secular law. Just because my religion tells me I need to sacrifice a virgin to my god once a month does NOT mean that I get a free pass to murder virgins. Just because my religion tells me that I can't do business with certain groups of people does NOT mean that I get a free pass to ignore the laws that say a public business must be willing to serve the entire public. Religious freedom does NOT mean the freedom to ignore the secular laws that everyone else has to follow. Being religious doesn't make you special or above the law.

 

[dianaiad]

Freedom of religion must be held sacrosanct (pun intended) MOST churches around here have 'closed for meetings' (including mine) on their own. those who don't must not be fined or penalized....but hey.

there's nothing stopping the government from, upon people leaving crowded churches, letting the parishioners know that THEY, by choosing to attend large meetings in church (absolutely their right) must then ALSO enter quarentine for two weeks, said quarantine resetting every time they attend?

Mind you, this whole thing makes me think 'HYPOCRISY DEFINED' when government sanctions are proposed by people who have been attempting to destroy the separation of church and state all along..you know, the 'world would be MUCH better without religion" and "churches should have their tax exemptions revoked' even when other non-profit institutions that do a great deal less good are considered just fine in terms of the IRS.

and then these same people go to markets, crowd together and stand in very long lines in order to grab as much toilet paper as they can.

I don't understand toilet paper people. At all

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Yeah, Church of England is okay with quietly shutting down for who knows how long. But this leaves a gap in the community and it is wrong to look at it as a shame that everyone can't be on board with this. It's a shame that everyone in the UK feels like it's easy to throw away their religion.

They are not "throwing away their religion. They are behaving responsibly. It's one of the national differences: we believe in doing our duty, while USians whine about their "rights".

 

[bobhikes]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

In the US the catholic church has said

The Catholic Church has announced that all masses will be suspended from today (Saturday), in light of the COVID-19 virus.

In a statement issued on Saturday, it said the Church needs to escalate its response based on current advice.

It added that because of the special nature of these times, all Catholics are strongly urged to fulfil their Sunday obligation by participating in Mass on Trinity TV or on Power 102 FM at 8 am Sunday.

At least one church has made a sensible choice.

A daily schedule will be released by March 17.

 

[John53]

In the US it technically is a violation of the First Amendment’s clause about the right to peaceable assembly, not freedom of religion. No state has the right to override the US Constitution. I see a number of court cases about this. Gov. Murphy of N.J. has trampled all over the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. Whether there’s some loopholes he’s banking on remains to be seen. I hope he gets slapped down by the N.J. state and/or US Supreme Courts.

Have you seen footage of the hospitals in Italy? Only in America would someone be more concerned about constitutional rights rather than the lives of their children, parents, extended family and friends.

 

[sun rise]

This would apply to monastics too?

If safety is over religious masses, why would they be excluded? (Tried to find it online. Sounds interesting topic)

They live together. That's different from people who live in multiple places congregating in one place when there's no need.

Today I heard part of an NPR interview with, ahem, a minister, a rabbi and an imam about the impact of COVID-19. They were explicitly asked about such gatherings. They all agreed it was against the fundamental teachings of their own religious doctrine and would speak out against any who claimed it is necessary or desirable.

Listen to The Takeaway Faith Communities Find Creative Ways to Congregate Amid Pandemic 2020-03-26
Takeaway
Faith Communities Find Creative Ways to Congregate Amid Pandemic 2020-03-26 | The Takeaway | WNYC Studios

 

[sun rise]

View attachment 38229 View attachment 38230 View attachment 38231 View attachment 38232 View attachment 38233

No right is absolute.

 

[sun rise]

Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand what religious freedom means. Having the freedom to practice your religion does NOT mean freedom to ignore established secular law. Just because my religion tells me I need to sacrifice a virgin to my god once a month does NOT mean that I get a free pass to murder virgins. Just because my religion tells me that I can't do business with certain groups of people does NOT mean that I get a free pass to ignore the laws that say a public business must be willing to serve the entire public. Religious freedom does NOT mean the freedom to ignore the secular laws that everyone else has to follow. Being religious doesn't make you special or above the law.

Think of, for example, the principle that all religions are equal under the Constitution. Let's say fanatical Muslims claim the right to force women to stay in the home, to not hold a job, drive a car and do anything without the approval of her husband.

Of course that would be opposed by the vast majority.

But the claim that any religion or group of adherents has the absolute right to do whatever they want no matter what, means that all religions and groups of adherents have that right.

I know. I know. Some claim they are special because they're right and all others are wrong and thus not entitled to protection.

Not in these United States.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mind you, this whole thing makes me think 'HYPOCRISY DEFINED' when government sanctions are proposed by people who have been attempting to destroy the separation of church and state all along..

You do know this equally applies to all, don't you? Religion was no target when this happened. This wasn't done to pick on religion, but Christians--per their normal behavior--eagerly scream they are being repressed and made into martyrs by the big, evil, scary, baby eating secular establishment.

 

[McBell]

You do know this equally applies to all, don't you? Religion was no target when this happened. This wasn't done to pick on religion, but Christians--per their normal behavior--eagerly scream they are being repressed and made into martyrs by the big, evil, scary, baby eating secular establishment.

seems to me there are an awful lot of Christians who seem to think that unless they are under attack (real or imagined) then they are no longer Christians.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense

This is a complete misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the separation of church and state. That's simply not what it means.

He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Atheism isn't a religion, and atheism can't possibly be 'racist'.
Atheists can be religious, and atheists can be racist.
I'm an atheist. Northam's opinion and views have absolutely nothing to do with mine, without even going into discussion on what they do.

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

This view will simply lead to mass and rapid spread of the disease. That's all.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Applies to everyone. The law is not with regard to religion. Religions are free to practice as long as they obey civil laws.
Like Mormons only get one wife despite their religious beliefs.

The thing is, even in the interest of containing disease, this is not the same thing as polygamy. Polygamy asks to change a law already in effect (no polygamy), and the state is refusing to make exceptions. As a matter of fact, most states (as I have already mentioned) did make exemptions for religion. Virginia just has one of the governors who decided to completely not make any such exceptions (lucky me, I get to put up with this guy). Read this 1st Amendment again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's not one, but two times the Constitution has outright been ignored. This law ought to be either adjusted so it does in fact allow those to meet at their own risk, or done away with as unconstitutional.

Yes, there are times when people ought to obey civil laws when they are part of a religion, such as when religious law asks something where current civil law is superior (a religious law says you should stone someone to death, you should probably ignore that one). There are also times when just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it should be the law. Prior to the Civil War, many laws about slavery existed concerning its regulation and control. And some churches colluded with such laws, quoting the "servants obey your masters" outside of the context that masters should also be kind to servants, and ignoring passages which spoke about freedom (Galatians 5:1, Luke 4:18, Exodus 21:2-6, Philemon 1:16, John 8:36). When current law threatens human lives or freedom, those laws are unjust.

There's also the matter of the federal law (the Constitution) saying that religious groups can exist and people have the right to meet. When in doubt, the federal law is always greater than the state law. You "can" follow the state law, but the doctrine of pre-emption comes into play here, provided the fed decides to pursue it.

What happens when a state law contradicts a U.S. federal law?

 

[Nakosis]

The thing is, even in the interest of containing disease, this is not the same thing as polygamy. Polygamy asks to change a law already in effect (no polygamy), and the state is refusing to make exceptions. As a matter of fact, most states (as I have already mentioned) did make exemptions for religion. Virginia just has one of the governors who decided to completely not make any such exceptions (lucky me, I get to put up with this guy). Read this 1st Amendment again.



That's not one, but two times the Constitution has outright been ignored. This law ought to be either adjusted so it does in fact allow those to meet at their own risk, or done away with as unconstitutional.

Yes, there are times when people ought to obey civil laws when they are part of a religion, such as when religious law asks something where current civil law is superior (a religious law says you should stone someone to death, you should probably ignore that one). There are also times when just because something is the law, it doesn't mean it should be the law. Prior to the Civil War, many laws about slavery existed concerning its regulation and control. And some churches colluded with such laws, quoting the "servants obey your masters" outside of the context that masters should also be kind to servants, and ignoring passages which spoke about freedom (Galatians 5:1, Luke 4:18, Exodus 21:2-6, Philemon 1:16, John 8:36). When current law threatens human lives or freedom, those laws are unjust.

There's also the matter of the federal law (the Constitution) saying that religious groups can exist and people have the right to meet. When in doubt, the federal law is always greater than the state law. You "can" follow the state law, but the doctrine of pre-emption comes into play here, provided the fed decides to pursue it.

What happens when a state law contradicts a U.S. federal law?

Law makers can make exception if they choose I suppose whether I agree or not. Me I don't think it is a good idea.

However it is not a peaceable assembly. It is an assembly that could cost many lives. It is an assembly which carries a dire threat. People can choose to ignore that threat but in doing so it is not only their own lives they are risking.

 

[John53]

That's not one, but two times the Constitution has outright been ignored. This law ought to be either adjusted so it does in fact allow those to meet at their own risk, or done away with as unconstitutional.

It's not at their own risk. It's also at the risk of everyone they then come in contact with and if the church get that option why can't other groups also?

 

[Sunstone]

Typical fundamentalist. Wants the right to harm people or she cries persecution.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Law makers can make exception if they choose I suppose whether I agree or not. Me I don't think it is a good idea.

However it is not a peaceable assembly. It is an assembly that could cost many lives. It is an assembly which carries a dire threat. People can choose to ignore that threat but in doing so it is not only their own lives they are risking.

Peaceable assembly refers to assembly not conducted with the intent to, for example, cause riots, revolts, or kill people. A lynch mob, for example. Suppose we replace the word Coronavirus with "cold". Would you say that it is reasonable to forbid all worship due to a cold? No, you might tell people to cover their noses and wash their hands, but to completely forbid church worship would be seen as unreasonable. At least, not if there are only 11 people. And those people are not meeting to intentionally spread a disease, they are meeting to worship and pray at a time when people need to feel hope. You might strongly recommend people stay home for a gathering of over 500, correct? Especially if those people were being forced to come?

People are in fact allowed to risk their own lives. If it were not so, all alcohol would be banned as it kills an average of 6 people a day (for most of you here, who do not understand orders of magnitude, this is 2190 people a year just in US, not including those who kill themselves in drunk driving accidents (which jumps to 30 people a day, or 10,950 people a year)). Nor are all cars banned, despite accidents for all sorts of reasons. Life is risky. The difference is that nobody is demanding they come. Not even God, they have freedom to come (or not). Sabbath is a gift, it is up to the believer. Mark 2:25-28

By contrast, all members of Congress (roughly 100 Senate, roughly 435 House making them at least ten times the crowd of an average church, and nearly 50 times that of this theoretical 11 person church) are still meeting, and are probably being asked to. Nobody gave them a choice at all, and since they come from every state in the Union, could therefore spread infection far more readily than the average population, especially those living in small towns.

So which of these groups do you think shouldn't be meeting? The church? Or the government?