Church's and Violence Tomorrow?

Yous has every right to go to church. Yous have no right to spread a deadly disease. I would think yous would have to good sense to know the difference Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Everyone going to church is also aware they are taking the risk in doing so.

Absolutely no different than running to Wally world because they are few cents cheaper than someplace else less crowded.

You will always have segments of the population not doing what's in the full best interest of the "collective", but meets their individual needs. Religion and the "Church Experience" are very very personal to some. That is was freedom was supposed to be about.

But obviously those wanting government control of every aspect of everyone's life just don't get that.

Are you really comparing statutory rape to the coronavirus?

You can most certainly make your point without being outlandish.

When people do things like that it literally ruins their entire argument and gives it no credibility.

Believe it or not people are allowed to have a difference of opinion without being sarcastic and rude Originally Posted by Sienna91

I was replying to your statement, "I'm not a worshipper but it infuriates me that people that are can't worship in the way they choose."

People absolutely should not be able to worship in the way that they choose if they're killing others by doing so. And that's what's happening. See the three links I posted above, about churches in South Korea, France and California. Hundreds or thousands of people will die as a result of services held in those churches.

I'm not sure we actually disagree, if you believe services must be outdoors and people separated by 6 feet.

Everyone going to church is also aware they are taking the risk in doing so.

Absolutely no different than running to Wally world because they are few cents cheaper than someplace else less crowded.

You will always have segments of the population not doing what's in the full best interest of the "collective", but meets their individual needs. Religion and the "Church Experience" are very very personal to some. That is was freedom was supposed to be about.

But obviously those wanting government control of every aspect of everyone's life just don't get that. Originally Posted by eccielover

Yeah, if people want to endanger themselves they have every right. But other people will be infected as a result of their recklessness.

A co-worker has grandparents who are in their 80's and are raring to get out of the house and go to their church, but they aren't because it isn't holding services. Should they be prevented from going? If you knew they weren't going to spread the disease to others then maybe let them have at it. However, I don't relish as a taxpayer having to pay for their Medicare if they get sick.

People absolutely should not be able to worship in the way that they choose if they're killing others by doing so. Originally Posted by Tiny

Again either apply that logic across the board and remove all our personal freedoms, or you have to allow for any and all exceptions.

I'm not religious in the least either and have to be drug into churches for weddings and funerals, but many I know, it's an integral part of their life, their faith, and even daily routine.

I can empathize with them for that. And this is basically one of two major events in their religiosity. Easter has a special meaning to even many who don't attend regularly.

I don't downplay that off hand.

Yous has every right to go to church. Yous have no right to spread a deadly disease. I would think yous would have to good sense to know the difference Originally Posted by HoeHummer

I do. You don't. There is no constitutional prohibition against the "spread of a deadly disease," but there is a Constitutional prohibition against the Government preventing people in this country from worshiping their God of choice, speaking their religion, and assembling for the purpose of doing so.

There exists no PRESUMPTION in FACT or even THEORY that everyone is "spreading a deadly disease" upon which to deny ALL the Constitutional Right to worship when and where they wish to do so!

But CommunistLiberalSocialistLoonA ntiTrumpers don't understand such concepts .... so they flee to Canada and whine about others who do! Just the FACT they would advocate the release of CONVICTED CRIMINALS and advocate the arrest of those exercising a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT proves their bias and ignorance.

Again either apply that logic across the board and remove all our personal freedoms, or you have to allow for any and all exceptions.

I'm not religious in the least either and have to be drug into churches for weddings and funerals, but many I know, it's an integral part of their life, their faith, and even daily routine.

I can empathize with them for that. And this is basically one of two major events in their religiosity. Easter has a special meaning to even many who don't attend regularly.

I don't downplay that off hand. Originally Posted by eccielover

What the CommunistSocialistLiberalLoonA ntiTrumpers don't recognize is that EVERYONE ELSE appearing in the congregation for the worship service made that knowledgeable choice and they ASSUMED the risk of being exposed to the virus .... and the CSLLAT's "ASSUME" that all those folks are too dumb to recognize the RISKS and so they need their direction to save themselves .... without realizing that the reason why those folks ASSUMED THE RISK is so they could ask God for DIRECTION .... instead of the stupid LOONS who want to be Little Gods! Does PissLousy "know" better about what is in my best interests? Fuck No!

Yeah, if people want to endanger themselves they have every right. But other people will be infected as a result of their recklessness.

A co-worker has grandparents who are in their 80's and are raring to get out of the house and go to their church, but they aren't because it isn't holding services. Should they be prevented from going? If you knew they weren't going to spread the disease to others then maybe let them have at it. However, I don't relish as a taxpayer having to pay for their Medicare if they get sick. Originally Posted by Tiny

You are now going down the rabbit hole of anti-vaxxers, Amish, etc.

All of them have been vindicated in court to allow, as foolish as it seems in some cases, the ability to allow religion to over ride what you are trying basically to say is common sense.

It comes down to, do you believe in the precepts of our Constitution or only when it's convenient to do so.

A co-worker has grandparents ..... Originally Posted by Tiny

Why do you use a "co-worker" example talking about a church service?

Again either apply that logic across the board and remove all our personal freedoms, or you have to allow for any and all exceptions.

I'm not religious in the least either and have to be drug into churches for weddings and funerals, but many I know, it's an integral part of their life, their faith, and even daily routine.

I can empathize with them for that. And this is basically one of two major events in their religiosity. Easter has a special meaning to even many who don't attend regularly.

I don't downplay that off hand. Originally Posted by eccielover

OK, then maybe you could reply to what offended Sienna. Should someone like Warren Jeffs be allowed to operate freely? What if you're literally killing people in accordance with a Muslim Fatwa?

There are laws in the United States that allow government to quarantine and the like, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Why doesn't freedom of religion trump those laws when it comes to Warren Jeffs and Fatwas? If the answer is no, then aren't we just arguing about a matter of degree? Because hundreds or thousands of people will die from the new coronavirus spread from church services, unless as Sienna suggests you enforce social distancing.

What the CommunistSocialistLiberalLoonA ntiTrumpers don't recognize is that EVERYONE ELSE appearing in the congregation for the worship service made that knowledgeable choice and they ASSUMED the risk of being exposed to the virus .... and the CSLLAT's "ASSUME" that all those folks are too dumb to recognize the RISKS and so they need their direction to save themselves .... without realizing that the reason why those folks ASSUMED THE RISK is so they could ask God for DIRECTION .... instead of the stupid LOONS who want to be Little Gods! Does PissLousy "know" better about what is in my best interests? Fuck No! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Including the children? Including the people outside the church they transmit the disease to in the course of normal everyday life?

OK, then maybe you could reply to what offended Sienna. Should someone like Warren Jeffs be allowed to operate freely? What if you're literally killing people in accordance with a Muslim Fatwa?

There are laws in the United States that allow government to quarantine and the like, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Why doesn't freedom of religion trump those laws when it comes to Warren Jeffs and Fatwas? If the answer is no, then aren't we just arguing about a matter of degree? Because hundreds or thousands of people will die from the new coronavirus spread from church services, unless as Sienna suggests you enforce social distancing. Originally Posted by Tiny

WOW, you are really trying to equate Warren Jeffs to attending a church service.

You've lost it dude.

I still contend the asshole going to Wally World daily to make sure he can stock up on TP is more dangerous than the church goer on Easter Sunday.

You are now going down the rabbit hole of anti-vaxxers, Amish, etc.

All of them have been vindicated in court to allow, as foolish as it seems in some cases, the ability to allow religion to over ride what you are trying basically to say is common sense.

It comes down to, do you believe in the precepts of our Constitution or only when it's convenient to do so. Originally Posted by eccielover

I believe in the fundamental principal of the Declaration of Independence, that people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When one of those rights is endangered by another then choices have to be made, one way or the other. And common sense tells you when the majority of coronavirus cases in South Korea came from services at a church, you don't repeat the same mistake.

Including the children? Including the people outside the church they transmit the disease to in the course of normal everyday life? Originally Posted by Tiny

What "children"? The parents make the decision about their children and not you, or any Loon advocating the control of how people run their lives. You again inappropriately ASSUME that all children are exposed to the virus .... or have been ..... and you have no FACTS to support that ASSUMPTION! You people want to turn this country into a Communist China and using the threat of this virus to do so!

WOW, you are really trying to equate Warren Jeffs to attending a church service.

You've lost it dude.

I still contend the asshole going to Wally World daily to make sure he can stock up on TP is more dangerous than the church goer on Easter Sunday. Originally Posted by eccielover

Look, I've got no idea what you're talking about. Wally World is a fictional place in a movie. If you're talking about places of business, where I live there are a limited number of people who can be inside at any one time, which makes sense. If you want to conduct church services or sporting events and enforce social distancing then fine.

If you're talking about places of business, where I live there are a limited number of people who can be inside at any one time, which makes sense. If you want to conduct church services or sporting events and enforce social distancing then fine. Originally Posted by Tiny

Where you "live" is there a FIRST AMENDMENT?

Please let me remind you: In the United States of America there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to shop at Walmart or attend "sporting events" ... in this country you can't even enforce walking within 6 feet of someone~~~~~~~~!!! But there IS A RIGHT to go to church, speak, and assemble.

Don't forget ... this virus will "disappear" ... are you sure you want all these rules and precedents to be in place when the next wave of flu hits? You don't ... you just won't admit it!