4 ms·

The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably mo

The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.

kmonsen 6y ago
They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores. If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.) The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    People need food to survive. No one needs religion.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      I take issue with that statement. Yes, people need food to survive, and yes, one can survive without religion, but that shouldn’t be the argument. It should be that one can worship from home; one doesn’t need to go to a religious building for worship.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
> But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention). That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'. The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Food > faith If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)

kmonsen 6y ago

They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
The issue is that the government is putting more restrictions on the church than it does grocery stores. If California put the same restrictions on grocery stores, as it did churches they would be more consistent with US law. Otherwise, the government has to prove that the difference in restrictions is so important it outweighs the religious concerns raised by the plaintiffs. (This is a high bar to reach in the US.) The SCOTUS is being lazy by letting CA characterize a church similarly to a commercial movie theater. That is nonsense. A person can miss a movie without risking eternal damnation, but this may not be true for some church services for some Christians.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  People need food to survive. No one needs religion.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    I take issue with that statement. Yes, people need food to survive, and yes, one can survive without religion, but that shouldn’t be the argument. It should be that one can worship from home; one doesn’t need to go to a religious building for worship.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store Earnest belief has also led to self inflicted wounds, drowning, and hanging others. I don't think religion should get a pass or get preferencial treatment.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
A US government does not get to tell people how to practice religion beyond making a determination whether the belief system is a religion. And, making a determination if a particular practice is legal (to exclude harms like you mention). That is why I have been careful to describe protected religious practices using the term 'otherwise lawful religious practice'. The plaintiffs clearly practice a religion. Going to church is clearly a legal religious practice. Thus, the government needs to prove that shorter lines at grocery stores are more important than longer lines or less capacity at churches. The government can't prove that because it can't interpret (or weigh) the importance of going to church.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Food > faith If you've known any religious people who successfully fasted all food for over a month then you may have seen the evidence for yourself. (Even as a once religious person I found it shocking.)