3 ms·
I think the "forced inside thing" is false. I am not particularly religious but I take issue with the government telling congregations they cannot practice thei
by zer8k 3y ago
I think the "forced inside thing" is false. I am not particularly religious but I take issue with the government telling congregations they cannot practice their faith, even outdoors, and in the same breath tell people protesting is a-ok and totally your right.
What we have isn't a democracy. It's a gerontocracy that saw political gain in putting hundreds of thousands at risk while simultaneously sticking it to the religious (possibly) right. For whatever reason, mentioning this turns things inflammatory when it's the reality of the situation. You could protest shoulder to shoulder with or without a mask but congregating for church was made temporarily illegal. What kind of logic is that?
- Shaanie 3y agoWeren't all gatherings banned, but due to different legal rights for protests they weren't? Framing it as an attack against religion is incredibly misleading in that case.
- zer8k 3y agoFreedom of speech and freedom of religion are held in the same esteem constitutionally. There's no different legal rights. Practicing a religion is a form of speech. The same form of speech protesters were using. It was entirely political. By and large the protesters agreed with the dominant political party, and people practicing religion generally didn't. There was no constitutional basis for their restriction. Unfortunately, a case like this has to be resolved at the higher courts and we know that those work on geologic time.
- bell-cot 3y agoWhen it comes to huge government bureaucracies, Hanlon's Razor is double plus plus applicable. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor )