See above. The fact that they are bigger means it should be even more safe to stay open.
The Supremes say you can't limit Church attendance
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
I never said I was talking about the figure of 10. In fact I specifically stated that I wasn't making that assertion. I wasn't making a statement about my opinions on the matter.
I used the Cathedral as an exaggerated statement to pull out that your facts comparing a catholic church that seated 200 wasn't equal to a Best Buy in anywhere USA. Facts in an argument trying to persuade someone to come to another conclusion are important. I wasn't splitting facts, just trying to point out that this fact wasn't 100% accurate.
You have made religious assertions on here that every Pope(except possibly those that were excommunicated) would excommunicate you from the church, if you held on to them. But that is not the issue. You are not a member of the church, and myself and Huffy are.
It is only relevant to my question, what someone(specifically Huffy) thinks about the Pope being infallible, because it has more serious consequences/connotations for us, as Catholics. And we as Catholics probably have more facts available than a non catholic, to pull from.
Just to make Huffy aware, in case he hasn't been keeping up with every post on this board. You were talking about apocryphal books related to the bible as being true.
Infallibility only applies to certain official communications. Apparently not when he gets drunk and tired and says he doesn’t think hell exists.
He does know what a good ass looks like though apparently 😂
I was thinking more along the lines of your comments about catechism.
It's not slander. It's not false, and it wasn't pointed at religious entities. It was pointed at conservatives as a whole. They by and large don't vote for representatives who value life 10 minutes after birth. They argue for the sanctity of life and completely ignore the quality of life available to those who they're trying to "save". Their faux efforts at charity do little in comparison to their support for laws and regulations that are detrimental to the quality of life of these folks.
There is no agree to disagree on this issue, your belief in those scriptures would be met with great disagreement by every pope in the catholic church. Those scriptures have been declared apocryphal by the church.
You've made this same argument before referring specifically to religious people, religious conservatives to be exact. And religious conservatives are exactly who you're referring to here when you talking about conservatives arguing for the sanctity of life. Plus, if you haven't noticed religion is pretty central to the theme of this thread. So yeah, you're not fooling anyone with this.
Even if you completely separated religion from the argument and only spoke about secular conservatives this would still be a slander. People who think differently from you still care about people and still show it, just not in the same way you do. I truly don't understand your inability to understand people who aren't like you.
Last edited:
The charity that's being given pales in comparison to the amount that we voted to give back to the top 1% in 2017. It pales in comparison to the amount we would need to give to actually get usable and reliable healthcare for those who can't afford it.
The amount of times that I've heard the argument from many various conservatives that a person who's struggling financially just didn't work hard enough is absurd. Charity in itself is kind of a crock because it's not the entire community deciding what the most pressing need for the money is. How many times have we seen large donations to places like the Gathering Place, when in the same city, people are struggling to put food on the table. Yes, the money was used for charity. Yes it's a nice park... but it was by no means the most pressing need that Tulsa had. And that's not even mentioning the charities that are charities in name only like the Susan G Komen foundation.
I'm more of a proponent of putting our societal wealth to a greater utility that improves the quality of life for the greatest amount of people. In my opinion, that means a way to collect excess societal wealth (taxes) and a way to publicly debate and decide on its best utilization (voting). Instead of the Grandma down the street donating her fortune to the homeless Chihuahua fund.
We're kind of delving into philosophical ethics here though. Do you believe in doing one HUGELY influential and positive thing for one person, or 1000 inconsequentially small but positive things for 100 people?
Last edited:
That's actually among the best aspects of it. I don't care what someone else thinks is the best use of my charity and I don't presume to know the best use of someone else's.
You're an adult, not a kid, so it should not be hard for you to understand where other people are coming from and to see the way they view the world as valid but flawed. Disagreeing with someone does not require you to treat them as bad people.
That’s the new politics, man. Disagree and you aren’t just a bad person, but your professional life is over and your relatives distance themselves from you.
He truly has no idea what you are talking about. He was raised to reside in one column and cannot translate any info coming from outside that column.
Last edited:
Those Komen people all belong in prison ... or teaching college business courses on how to run a legitimate organization that functions like organized crime. No argument from me there.
Well, they are opening schools. Tell me again why science not cited in their administrative record says they can’t have church?
Just to clue you in...
The other day, I didn't say how I felt about the actual decision and it's LEGAL merits, because I don't know all the minute and very important specifics of the case and it's arguments. Nor do I know the specifics of the ulterior situations you mentioned about politicians and problems with the Jewish Synagogues/Leaders. Thus I didn't state my opinion on that, because at the moment my opinion is not fully formed, due to lack of all the relevant facts.
I do know that personal spacing is very important, and that I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of Churches and basketball games with attendants, for some similar reasons. There other reasons separate from basketball games.(Our games might share some of those reasons though, considering our large blue hair populace at games.) The church has always tended towards older citizens, but that has even become more exaggerated over the past 30 or 40 years, with people falling away from the church. The attendants sway much older now.
None of this can affect other churches like it affects the Catholic Church though. Churches can have broadcasts of their services and come close enough to a normal service. But as you know, we have an intrinsic part of the Catholic service which REQUIRES Holy Communion. Confession can be remote, the service can be remote, but Holy Communion cannot.
There are ways to help better avoid transmission of the virus by having a remote Catholic Service and avoid people sitting next to each other indoors for an hour plus.(Even social distance doesn't fully alleviate the transmissions, sitting indoors next to 50/100/200 people.) For the Communion the church could have the Priest outside keeping social distance between him and the person and persons taking communion, until the moment the person takes communion. The Priest could be a younger, healthier Priest. He could be equipped with N95 masks. Require the congregant taking communion is masked. He does not have to place it in their mouth, only in their hand. He could be gloved, and have each congregant hold out their hand and the Priest drop it a few inches away, into their hand. He could also be tested more regularly. Yes it would be more difficult, but many things are more difficult now, and we do them regardless. So their are ways communion could be done that would be much safer than sitting 6 ft away from many congregants for an hour or more.
Going into a grocery store/liquor store/bicycle store/hardware store does not require you sit next to someone(6 ft away) for an hour or more. You are near people for moments to minutes. There is the issue that the longer you are near someone who has covid(5 mins fine, 15 or 20 min not fine) that you can pick up more viral germs from them. If you only pick up a minimal amount of germs in 5 min or less, your body is more able to fight getting the virus. But if you are around them for 20+ the risk grows greater and greater that your body will not be able to fight off the amount of viral germs that you come into contact with. This even stands to reason for those that are older and/or immunocompromised.
But as I said, this does not take into account the legal arguments which are important, very important. And as I said I do not know the specifics of that well enough to come to a decision about that. And be able to determine whether that can be integrated into or compromised into the issues I just discussed.
Last edited:
In 80 percent of the parishes in this country, you could increase the number of masses and reduce crowds to an acceptable level. That would require priests to work like everyone else and make a reservation for church, both improvements in some ways.
One more note on Holy Communion. I don't know specifically if it would take a special dispensation. I don't think it would. But that special dispensation would be given whole heartedly if it would help it's congregants avoid the virus more easily. Priests could give outdoor Communion after the daily mass, to alleviate the church, and it's congregants from having to do it all on Sunday.
The reason they are opening schools is because it’s a main reason that many kids in our country get to eat a meal. Its a calculated risk.
Church services aren’t responsible for preventing hunger in the same way, and their attendees tend to be much more susceptible to serious illness for the disease than school kids do.
Is the nourishment of the soul not equally as or more important? When the perception is that lawmakers pick and choose what’s important they fail the people they work for. It’s either all or nothing. People are wise enough to make their own decisions!
How do those same kids eat during summer? Or thanksgiving, or christmas. Or every saturday and sunday?
I could be wrong, but I thought the decision was somewhat narrow.
The state made the argument that religion was not discriminated against, because every other high risk activity was discriminated against the same way. And less risky activities were not discriminated against as strongly. The state argued that it wasn't anything to do with religion, but rather that church activities simply tend to be higher risk activities and were treated accordingly, and therefore it wasn't a 1st Amendment issue.
The SCOTUS (sort of) rejected that argument. They noted that if you drop the risk group analysis and group by secular/nonsecular activities, that it sure does seem that edit:nonsecular activities got hit harder and that can be considered discrimination.
I don't think the majority on the SCOTUS put forth the opinion that you can't limit church attendance at all because of the first amendment. But it was a warning shot that states ought to be very careful about how they do it.
If an attorney in here wants to educate me on why I am wrong, please feel free.
Last edited:
I am not an attorny, but the post was mine so I will defend it.
Regardless of what was in the mind of the Justices, I still think it is not good to start ignoring the Bill of Rights. I think this was argued in the abstract and there was lots of points both ways like why the number was 10 in some places.
I also think there are churches who have self limited. But other churches whose dogma just doesn't allow it. If everyone wanted to work together I blieve something more than 10 or 30 could be done in a safe manner. If we have a vaccine soon the problem will go away, but if this drags on there will be contined controversy.
Regardless of what was in the mind of the Justices, I still think it is not good to start ignoring the Bill of Rights. I think this was argued in the abstract and there was lots of points both ways like why the number was 10 in some places.
I also think there are churches who have self limited. But other churches whose dogma just doesn't allow it. If everyone wanted to work together I blieve something more than 10 or 30 could be done in a safe manner. If we have a vaccine soon the problem will go away, but if this drags on there will be contined controversy.
Also not an attorney, but I think some of the statements NY and NYC leaders made implying or outright saying that religious services were “non-essential” undercut their argument that there is a scientific justification for treating them differently. The opinion seemed to say as much.
Last edited:
For a lot of them, they struggle to eat consistently during the summer or on the weekends and what they do eat is probably junk like Ramen.
I have distinct experience in this arena. When I was in 5th grade my mom and I got in a car wreck whilst going out of town for thanksgiving that left her in a wheelchair for about a year. Two people died. They thought I had a broken neck. Lots of hospital bills. Things had been tight financially prior to this, but afterwards things were just horrific.
So when it came to food around the house there frequently just wasn’t any. My mom was a teacher at the same middle school I went to. So despite the fact that we had crushing debt that was eating up all of our funds (to the point that I remember our water being shut off and carrying bins to school to carry water back home) she apparently made to much for me to be part of the national reduced meal lunch program. So everyday I got to sit at lunch with my friends and watch them eat whilst I was starving. That lasted through high school. I eventually helped out when I got a job, but the place we lived was hard to get a job because it was surrounded by pastures / highways and I didn’t have a car.
At home after school / on the weekends I would typically go over to friends houses and be amazed at their pantries being so full. I luckily had a number of friends with empathetic parents who helped take care of me. I used to steal hot pockets from one friend’s house because I had no food at home. And it was no fault of my mom who was working two jobs just so we could have a roof over our head and utilities.
One thing I will note is that the kids families who were the least religious tended to be the most empathetic and caring.
Last edited:
The problem isn’t really the synagogues / churches that are taking precautions and being careful. It’s the churches that are completely disregarding orders (typically so they can keep seeing the tithes come in). It’s sad that a number of bad congregations make things worse for everyone.
i think it says a lot when a politician says we need to keep essential things open and that people need jobs. Do they not realize that some churches depend upon in person tithing to pay the salaries of dozens if not hundreds of people? The Catholic Church will be fine. It’s still the second largest land owner in America behind the government. But there’s a lot of Protestant churches running schools and community service centers and immigrant shelters that will have to shut down. Maybe that’s the point. Weaken the Churches and consolidate wealth and power, no different than Henry VIII.
That’s a lot of childhood trauma. Im so sorry to read this.
The thing that I don’t understand is why churches which have been famous for the last 50 years for having evangelical services on tv, can’t have a service online and request donations electronically. If you belong to some tiny church or synagogue that doesn’t have the means to do that, then fine but. Those haven’t been the churches raising the most furor about this. God doesn’t only exist in the building with the steeple.
