COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

[spliff(TONE)]

but when you say 'many churches' are you meaning because you've seen some on TV from big churches down south with full crowds? Or are you seeing more than that. Locally, there's been 50% capacities allowed...same for everybody, bars, restaurants, and churches...as opposed to some places talking numbers, which would mean a restaurant with a capacity for 150 could only have 100 people, but a church with capacity for 500 could also only have 100

No, I haven't seen any on TV. I'm referring to what I've heard about locally and also throughout the state. Seeing as how I live in a super liberal state, I can only imagine it's more prevalent elsewhere.

Grocery stores and hospitals are essential services, churches are not (and the services they do provide can be re-formatted to live streams). 50% capacity does not seem like an appropriate measure, especially in a place full of boisterous singing and such. These places should be operating online, outside at an appropriate distance, or maybe inside with a super small capacity, plenty of distancing, and whatever other measures minimize the risk of spread.

Call me cynical but I get the feeling some of these church leaders are more worried about their tithes being compromised than their member's health being compromised.

[dbroncos78087]

No, I haven't seen any on TV. I'm referring to what I've heard about locally and also throughout the state. Seeing as how I live in a super liberal state, I can only imagine it's more prevalent elsewhere.

Grocery stores and hospitals are essential services, churches are not (and the services they do provide can be re-formatted to live streams). 50% capacity does not seem like an appropriate measure, especially in a place full of boisterous singing and such. These places should be operating online, outside at an appropriate distance, or maybe inside with a super small capacity, plenty of distancing, and whatever other measures minimize the risk of spread.

Call me cynical but I get the feeling some of these church leaders are more worried about their tithes being compromised than their member's health being compromised.

Well now sir, you have gone too far! To besmirch the good name of those church leaders. You had better believe an army of 20 lawyers for each one will be ready to string you up and impose some good old fashion Old Testament justice on your ***.

[SiteWolf]

No, I haven't seen any on TV. I'm referring to what I've heard about locally and also throughout the state. Seeing as how I live in a super liberal state, I can only imagine it's more prevalent elsewhere.

Grocery stores and hospitals are essential services, churches are not (and the services they do provide can be re-formatted to live streams). 50% capacity does not seem like an appropriate measure, especially in a place full of boisterous singing and such. These places should be operating online, outside at an appropriate distance, or maybe inside with a super small capacity, plenty of distancing, and whatever other measures minimize the risk of spread.

Call me cynical but I get the feeling some of these church leaders are more worried about their tithes being compromised than their member's health being compromised.

well, my point wasn't the percentage, it was that far as I can tell the SC case doesn't allow churches special privileges, it allows them to get the same privileges as businesses.......if true, you'd find that fair, yes? These are large open spaces with high ceilings, so certainly shouldn't have to be MORE restricted than, say, a restaurant, agreed? I'm sure there can be a financial aspect to this, too- a church's expenses do continue just like they do for businesses.

[SiteWolf]

Well now sir, you have gone too far! To besmirch the good name of those church leaders. You had better believe an army of 20 lawyers for each one will be ready to string you up and impose some good old fashion Old Testament justice on your ***.

Are you having fun?
'cause you're just absolutely clueless on the subject

[spliff(TONE)]

well, my point wasn't the percentage, it was that far as I can tell the SC case doesn't allow churches special privileges, it allows them to get the same privileges as businesses.......if true, you'd find that fair, yes? These are large open spaces with high ceilings, so certainly shouldn't have to be MORE restricted than, say, a restaurant, agreed? I'm sure there can be a financial aspect to this, too- a church's expenses do continue just like they do for businesses.

No, I don't think I'd find that fair. As I already stated: churches are not essential businesses. Having said that, I don't think restaurants should be operating indoors currently regardless of capacity. Outdoor, spaced out tables and takeout only seems appropriate with how things currently are. Not to mention church is about congregating and involves singing, with services that generally last 60-90 minutes. Whereas going to a grocery store is a quicker in and out, personal sort of situation where you are grabbing essential items to provide sustenance for yourself and your family.

[SiteWolf]

No, I don't think I'd find that fair. As I already stated: churches are not essential businesses. Having said that, I don't think restaurants should be operating indoors currently regardless of capacity. Outdoor, spaced out tables and takeout only seems appropriate with how things currently are. Not to mention church is about congregating and involves singing, with services that generally last 60-90 minutes. Whereas going to a grocery store is a quicker in and out, personal sort of situation where you are grabbing essential items to provide sustenance for yourself and your family.

You don't think you'd find it fair for a church to be treated like a restaurant? People can still wear a mask in a church, they're not doing that most of the time they're in a restaurant....and could easily be in a restaurant for the same 60-90 minutes as a church service.

I'm not calling churches essential nor am I suggesting they should get looser restrictions, I'm simply agreeing with what I thought this SC ruling allows for....that churches not be restricted MORE than other businesses.

[Crovash]

...far as I can tell the SC case doesn't allow churches special privileges, it allows them to get the same privileges as businesses.......if true, you'd find that fair, yes?

Personally, no.

Congregating in churches, synagogues, mosques, and covens is simply not essential.

[spliff(TONE)]

You don't think you'd find it fair for a church to be treated like a restaurant? People can still wear a mask in a church, they're not doing that most of the time they're in a restaurant....and could easily be in a restaurant for the same 60-90 minutes as a church service.

I'm not calling churches essential nor am I suggesting they should get looser restrictions, I'm simply agreeing with what I thought this SC ruling allows for....that churches not be restricted MORE than other businesses.

Correct, I don't feel like a church should be treated like a restaurant during a pandemic. Like I also clearly said: I don't think restaurants should be offering indoor dining currently either. If there are other establishments that allow groups of people to congregate and sing right now, I am not aware of their existence. Based on all this, I do not believe that churches are being restricted more than other businesses.

Most all of the complaints I've heard from church leaders seem to fall in to the "if it's my time to die, it's my time to die" and "God is in control of everything, I am not scared of contracting (or spreading) a deadly virus" category, which I have very little respect for in times like these.

[Crovash]

Correct, I don't feel like a church should be treated like a restaurant during a pandemic. Like I also clearly said: I don't think restaurants should be offering indoor dining currently either. If there are other establishments that allow groups of people to congregate and sing right now, I am not aware of their existence. Based on all this, I do not believe that churches are being restricted more than other businesses.

Most all of the complaints I've heard from church leaders seem to fall in to the "if it's my time to die, it's my time to die" and "God is in control of everything, I am not scared of contracting (or spreading) a deadly virus" category, which I have very little respect for in times like these.

What he said.

[SiteWolf]

Personally, no.

Congregating in churches, synagogues, mosques, and covens of hardly essential.

Correct, I don't feel like a church should be treated like a restaurant during a pandemic. Like I also clearly said: I don't think restaurants should be offering indoor dining currently either. If there are other establishments that allow groups of people to congregate and sing right now, I am not aware of their existence. Based on all this, I do not believe that churches are being restricted more than other businesses.

Most all of the complaints I've heard from church leaders seem to fall in to the "if it's my time to die, it's my time to die" and "God is in control of everything, I am not scared of contracting (or spreading) a deadly virus" category, which I have very little respect for in times like these.

once again, I am NOT suggesting a church be considered essenstial and, for the record, I'm not even suggesting they should necessarily be allowed to have in person services.....but I'm not buying the mindset that they be more restricted than a restaurant.......especially when indoor dining means zero masks, while masks can be worn during a service, and restaurants don't have cathedral ceilings

Talking about how you view church leaders' motives is irrelevant to the point- there's no justification to restrict a church any more...or less...than other non-essential businesses

[spliff(TONE)]

once again, I am NOT suggesting a church be considered essenstial and, for the record, I'm not even suggesting they should necessarily be allowed to have in person services.....but I'm not buying the mindset that they be more restricted than a restaurant.......especially when indoor dining means zero masks, while masks can be worn during a service, and restaurants don't have cathedral ceilings

It really seems like you are suggesting that churches should be allowed to have in person services though.

Do restaurants allow patrons to be maskless when not eating or drinking? No. Do restaurants allow patrons to join in group song to their heart's content? No. Do I need to go on? Hopefully not.

These things are not at all the same, both in their function and how they go about providing the services they provide.

Talking about how you view church leaders' motives is irrelevant to the point- there's no justification to restrict a church any more...or less...than other non-essential businesses

No, it's not at all irrelevant. These churches might not be so quick to play the role of victim if they realized that we don't all exist in individual bubbles and that just because they're willing to leave their fate up to the big man in the sky, doesn't mean that everyone else should potentially suffer the consequences of their selfish, short-sighted behavior during a pandemic. Unfortunately, I fully believe that the motivation for some of these churches to ignore local health regulations has more to do with greed than faith.

What exactly are churches being prevented from doing that other non-essential establishments are not being prevented from doing?

[spliff(TONE)]

Children don't die from or spread COVID-19, amirite?

https://www.theroot.com/14-year-old-...-by-1845755734

[SiteWolf]

It really seems like you are suggesting that churches should be allowed to have in person services though.

Do restaurants allow patrons to be maskless when not eating or drinking? No. Do restaurants allow patrons to join in group song to their heart's content? No. Do I need to go on? Hopefully not.

These things are not at all the same, both in their function and how they go about providing the services they provide.



No, it's not at all irrelevant. These churches might not be so quick to play the role of victim if they realized that we don't all exist in individual bubbles and that just because they're willing to leave their fate up to the big man in the sky, doesn't mean that everyone else should potentially suffer the consequences of their selfish, short-sighted behavior during a pandemic. Unfortunately, I fully believe that the motivation for some of these churches to ignore local health regulations has more to do with greed than faith.

What exactly are churches being prevented from doing that other non-essential establishments are not being prevented from doing?

I AM suggesting churches shouldn't be restricted more than other non-essential businesses.
Well I dunno how things are around the country, I just know how things are here re restaurants- people wear a mask to their table, but once they're seated may not put it on again until they get up to leave again. Bars, not even that....by and large the only masks are on employees.

What are churches being prevented from? Well, if you're asking that, you're unaware of some things that are quite important to people spiritually. I'm not suggesting critical, but still important.

But, we are where we are.

[spliff(TONE)]

I AM suggesting churches shouldn't be restricted more than other non-essential businesses.
Well I dunno how things are around the country, I just know how things are here re restaurants- people wear a mask to their table, but once they're seated may not put it on again until they get up to leave again. Bars, not even that....by and large the only masks are on employees.

What are churches being prevented from? Well, if you're asking that, you're unaware of some things that are quite important to people spiritually. I'm not suggesting critical, but still important.

But, we are where we are.

Yet you can't provide a single one?

[catman]

States should absolutely be able to mandate social distancing measures at churches during a pandemic. Instead, many churches and their leaders are being reckless, selfish, and short-sighted about demanding their right to congregate en masse and in close quarters (along with knowingly and willfully breaking local health regulations if need be), despite the risk and despite the proliferation of live streaming options.

Do you not see the danger that this ruling would have brought about had it been allowed to stand? Here is an example. Lets say a very devout Atheist becomes the governor of a state and bans all religious services in his/her state. The supreme court would not be able to strike that ruling down with this as a precedent.
I have absolutely no problem with social distancing. I do not wish to be infected again. It was no fun and I do what I can to avoid the pleasure of a repeat visit from Covid.
Leaparishioners.