3 ms·

Why not implement social distancing rules and require proper ventillation or even outdoor services? Religious orgs are non-profits that can't survive without at

Why not implement social distancing rules and require proper ventillation or even outdoor services? Religious orgs are non-profits that can't survive without attendance. Prohibiting the free excercise of religion is a clear violation, especially given that other unprotected gatherings are allowed with less restrictions. To many it's an optional gathering, to others it's a "church vs state" fight, but the right was esrablished to protect the people that consider these gatherings as important. Sepration of Church and state is a two way road,you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. If religious law cannot force governmental law to accept a contradicting outcome that is acceptable only because the government in turn is restricted from telling religious organizations how to conduct their affairs. If this is a public health concern, rules must be established for everyone with no exceptions. If there are exceptions, religious organizations get priority because they are specifically protected along with freedom of speech and aseembly as the first right of the people. Let me spin it a bit for you due to all the riots and protests that are happening, majority (most?all?) Gatherings to plan and mobilize civil rights movement protests happened in protected Church assemblies (people sometimes like to conveniently excluse MLK's tile of Reverend). Today it's a virus, next month a terrorist attack, maybe then an enemy invasion and natural disaster. I understand this opinion will be unpopular here but you must understand OUR equal application of rights has no exception. Period. For example,You can say freedom of speech can't apply if you're shouting "fire in a crowd", but you can't say Jack can shout fire but Christian Emily can't. It's not just because Emily is being picked on for being religious,but also because she's a person guaranteed equal treatment.

alasdair_ 6y ago
> you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. I am, and I do. This is an egregiously hyperbolic argument. Perhaps you, personally, are unable to make the distinction, but most people are perfectly able to distinguish between a temporary restriction to stop a virus spreading and literal murder. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying “if you support building codes that ensure churches have fire exits, then you also support sharia law and honor killings”
- badrabbit 6y ago
  I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding. Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion. The government's authority to say "actual murder" as you put it (by the way, is capital punishment murder? Because honor killings are capital punishment under a different law.) is wrong is legitimate only because they honor the rights of the governed, a critical and primary right being the right to assemble, freedom of religion and equal application of the law,especially to a group explicitly protected. > I am, and I do. Of course you do, because you perhaps forget many wars were fought over this subject. It's not optional. If you believe that way then do you also believe neo-nazis should be shot on sight for displaying a swastika? But burning a swastika is illegal? Of course not, you allow both because both are protected. But I can tell you, the day they ban burning swastikas would be the day people line up to shoot neo-nazis. I make the hyperbolic comparisons for a reason. The extremes start small. Let us not take peace and freedom for granted. I am not saying Church services should be allowed. I am saying when you do ease restrictions, do it equally! Bases on building capacity and ventillation among other factors not "Churches". If that's ok then let's do the same by saying "black people can only assemble at 25% capacity because of covid death rate in the black community". There is a reason this basic rights exist. You treat them as suggestions and act surprised when the country is falling apart. If responsibilities are not optional, rights are not optional.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    What's wrong with Sharia law? As far as I know it's generally accepted in the US and presumably in other civilized countries that parties who agree to decide their disputes in alternative settings such as religious courts are allowed to do so. It's not something done by members of one religion only either. Jewish and Christian sects do it/have done it historically. I'm definitely against anyone being able to give up their rights to escalate to the regular court system, but as far as I know that only exists in secular arbitration which has a specific law addressing that.
    - yters 6y ago
      If an unmarried daughter has sex, the father can kill her. I think that shouldn't be allowed.

alasdair_ 6y ago

> you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. I am, and I do. This is an egregiously hyperbolic argument. Perhaps you, personally, are unable to make the distinction, but most people are perfectly able to distinguish between a temporary restriction to stop a virus spreading and literal murder. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying “if you support building codes that ensure churches have fire exits, then you also support sharia law and honor killings”

badrabbit 6y ago
I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding. Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion. The government's authority to say "actual murder" as you put it (by the way, is capital punishment murder? Because honor killings are capital punishment under a different law.) is wrong is legitimate only because they honor the rights of the governed, a critical and primary right being the right to assemble, freedom of religion and equal application of the law,especially to a group explicitly protected. > I am, and I do. Of course you do, because you perhaps forget many wars were fought over this subject. It's not optional. If you believe that way then do you also believe neo-nazis should be shot on sight for displaying a swastika? But burning a swastika is illegal? Of course not, you allow both because both are protected. But I can tell you, the day they ban burning swastikas would be the day people line up to shoot neo-nazis. I make the hyperbolic comparisons for a reason. The extremes start small. Let us not take peace and freedom for granted. I am not saying Church services should be allowed. I am saying when you do ease restrictions, do it equally! Bases on building capacity and ventillation among other factors not "Churches". If that's ok then let's do the same by saying "black people can only assemble at 25% capacity because of covid death rate in the black community". There is a reason this basic rights exist. You treat them as suggestions and act surprised when the country is falling apart. If responsibilities are not optional, rights are not optional.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  What's wrong with Sharia law? As far as I know it's generally accepted in the US and presumably in other civilized countries that parties who agree to decide their disputes in alternative settings such as religious courts are allowed to do so. It's not something done by members of one religion only either. Jewish and Christian sects do it/have done it historically. I'm definitely against anyone being able to give up their rights to escalate to the regular court system, but as far as I know that only exists in secular arbitration which has a specific law addressing that.
  - yters 6y ago
    If an unmarried daughter has sex, the father can kill her. I think that shouldn't be allowed.