• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastor again defies state order not to hold large gatherings. He says 1,000 people came to his churc

Decypher said:
Sounds great. Seems like many houses of worship are capable of adapting in order to serve their congregations during such a unprecedented time. Just like other elements of society have done. Are you ready to agree with the premise of the thread, that it’s irresponsible for certain religious leaders to continue to hold regular services despite the risks to the public?
Click to expand...

No, they are not. Few churches have any broadcasting ability and there is no such thing a baptizing someone online nor communion. Religious worship is a fellowship and it is far more than just listening to words.
 
TheGoverness said:
Article Here.



The pastors that are continuing to hold large gatherings, are absolute pieces of garbage. They are condemning more people to die, and helping it spread even more than it already is. On the other hand, there's still too many people out there that aren't taking social distancing seriously, and they need to be doing so. Too many idiots out there still want to have large parties and whatnot.
Click to expand...

That cult in South Korea was even worse, IIRC, but same general principle.
 
Hamish Howl said:
That cult in South Korea was even worse, IIRC, but same general principle.
Click to expand...

People have their priorities. Some put their faith ahead of good sense.
 
joko104 said:
No, they are not. Few churches have any broadcasting ability and there is no such thing a baptizing someone online nor communion. Religious worship is a fellowship and it is far more than just listening to words.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a laptop can do a webinar. Ministers can broadcast services from their website or use social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram. As to things like baptism or communion, unfortunately the religious are going to have make sacrifices like the rest of us for the good of the community. Hopefully their faith will be of some solace during this difficult time.
 
Chomsky said:
I dunno'. There's plenty of precedent of federal & state law Trumping religion. LDS polygamy is a prime example.
Click to expand...
Yes but there is a difference between banning a practice that happens to be supported and justified by the LDS church, and forbidding collective worship in all its churches (basically boarding up the doors of the St. George Tabernacle, the LDS Temple, The Old Elsinore Mormon Church , The 17th Mormon Temple in Cedar City etc. simultaniously) for an indeterminate time.

I think it is absolutely justifiable, and ultimately consistent with the Lemon test, but that has to give any church-goer fitful rest at night having to wait for Caesar to take those boards off again. Even 220 years is a drop in the historic bucket of time compared to the centuries during which Caesar has abused and exploited 'crisis' to attack the shepards, the sheep and fenced off the grazing grounds and absconded with the title and rights

They won't like this precedent and I can hardly blame them. History is not resplendent with anecdotes of Church and State singing Kumbayah together after churches sat quietly by while the state banned attendence in synagogues, churches, mosques etc. Its not a happy narrative.

Appellate courts are not unaware that the very same history is the reason we have a first amendment protection for religious practice and worship.
 
Last edited:
btthegreat said:
Yes but there is a difference between banning a practice that happens to be supported and justified by the LDS church, and forbidding collective worship in all its churches (basically boarding up the doors of the St. George Tabernacle, the LDS Temple, The Old Elsinore Mormon Church , The 17th Mormon Temple in Cedar City etc. simultaniously) for an indeterminate time.

I think it is absolutely justifiable, and ultimately consistent with the Lemon test, but that has to give any church-goer fitful rest at night having to wait for Caesar to take those boards off again. Even 220 years is a drop in the historic bucket of time compared to the centuries during which Caesar has abused and exploited 'crisis' to attack the shepards, the sheep and fenced off the grazing grounds and absconded with the title and rights

They won't like this precedent and I can hardly blame them. History is not resplendent with anecdotes of Church and State singing Kumbayah together after churches sat quietly by while the state banned attendence in synagogues, churches, mosques etc. Its not a happy narrative.

Appellate courts are not unaware that the very same history is the reason we have a first amendment protection for religious practice and worship.
Click to expand...
That's a fair post. Thanks for your reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom