7 ms·
> There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed fo
by beart 7y ago
> There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom.
I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
- nradov 7y agoI think you (and others who downvoted me) missed the point of my comment. It is absolutely legal for the government to restrict religious freedom in certain limited ways when there is a compelling reason to do so.
- beart 7y agoI did not miss that and I did not down-vote you. I have not been a church goer since I was a child and have not spent much time thinking about religious freedom so I was trying to understand when you say it is obviously a violation.
- pwinnski 7y agoForbidding people to gather together as part of religious observance is definitely a restriction on their religious freedom. In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere. In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does. However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.