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

[SiteWolf]

Churches always think they’re above the law. They think that they are the only law. We need to work to correct that thinking.

And what exactly thinking do you think needs your correcting? Can you even come up with a situation where churches 'think they're above the law'? And I don't mean picking out some outlier instances of personal misconduct

[SiteWolf]

Yet you can't provide a single one?

Can't? lol there's a difference between can't and didn't...
but if I were to list Bible verses about the power of gathering together or the spiritual importance of taking holy communion, etc, you'd just refute it anyway

[Crovash]

Doesn't make it any less essential. Restaurants operate with proper protocol intact, so can places of worship.

For one, I have always found eating and drinking to be more essential than singing praises to entities I have never seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted.

Also, the functioning restaurants in my community employ scores of people and pay taxes. The churches, on the other hand, are less beneficial to the local economy [EDIT] and in all likelihood a net drain.

[SiteWolf]

For one, I have always found eating and drinking to be more essential than singing praises to entities I have never seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted.

Also, the functioning restaurants in my community employ scores of people and pay taxes. The churches, on the other hand, are less beneficial to the local economy [EDIT] and in all likelihood a net drain.

you're not making an equal comparison

yes, eating and drinking is essential...is it essential for it to be done in a restaurant?
I would suggest I am losing less eating at home vs a restaurant than I am worshiping at home and not at a church.

Now we're going to make it an economic question, too? OK, so what's the economic benefit of housing a food bank? Giving out free meals? Offering shelter or refuge?

[Crovash]

you're not making an equal comparison

yes, eating and drinking is essential...is it essential for it to be done in a restaurant?

My point exactly. People who need “spiritual food” can do it at home just as well. Wasn’t it Jesus who said,

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.“

Iwould suggest I am losing less eating at home vs a restaurant than I am worshiping at home and not at a church.

Irrelevant.

Now we're going to make it an economic question, too? OK, so what's the economic benefit of housing a food bank? Giving out free meals? Offering shelter or refuge?

Zero, since they don’t do that in my town.

Even so, if you are talking about their financial support for those operations — or for that matter enlisting volunteers to man those operation — you simply cannot make a cogent argument that there is a need to congregate for an hour or two on Saturday or Sunday in order to do so.

Funny sidenote. One of the restaurants in my community used to be a church.

[SiteWolf]

The question wasn't whether one could worship at home, the question was whether eating in a restaurant was any more or less essential than worshiping in a group. So no, I don't see it irrelevant that I think worshiping in a group is of more importance than eating in public.

The fact that you don't see your local churches' community outreach doesn't mean they don't exist. You're also tying 2 different things together- you were talking about the economic benefit a restaurant provides vs those a church provides. A church is far more than just the Sunday morning service you think should not be happening. I'm simply showing a church provides more to the community than you're giving them credit for and can follow CDC protocols even more than a restaurant can.

[Crovash]

The question wasn't whether one could worship at home, the question was whether eating in a restaurant was any more or less essential than worshiping in a group. So no, I don't see it irrelevant that I think worshiping in a group is of more importance than eating in public.

The fact that you don't see your local churches' community outreach doesn't mean they don't exist. You're also tying 2 different things together- you were talking about the economic benefit a restaurant provides vs those a church provides. A church is far more than just the Sunday morning service you think should not be happening. I'm simply showing a church provides more to the community than you're giving them credit for and can follow CDC protocols even more than a restaurant can.

I am arguing about whether worship services are essential vis a vis restaurants (the SCOTUS decision).

EDIT: see my post #6428, which was my starting point in this aspect of the discussion.

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

So, while we are both arguing about what is essential, my interest focuses on a specific practice related to churches.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques can do their essential outreach services — either by means of financial support or volunteerism — without congregating.

And, if we want to go bigger picture as the discussion has evolved recently, I am happy to argue that the economic benefits must be factored in in determining utility.

The ministers, pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams are going to have jobs. In short, these institutions can survive in the short run without worship services.

Restaurants cannot survive without patrons on site or picking up take-out. Lots of people potentially lose their jobs (which may have a snowball effect on donations to institutions like churches). The town loses tax revenue.

Bottom line: the faithful can do their thing at home. Man might not live by bread alone, but in my book, it’s a whole lot better starting point than worship.

[dbroncos78087]

The question wasn't whether one could worship at home, the question was whether eating in a restaurant was any more or less essential than worshiping in a group. So no, I don't see it irrelevant that I think worshiping in a group is of more importance than eating in public.

The fact that you don't see your local churches' community outreach doesn't mean they don't exist. You're also tying 2 different things together- you were talking about the economic benefit a restaurant provides vs those a church provides. A church is far more than just the Sunday morning service you think should not be happening. I'm simply showing a church provides more to the community than you're giving them credit for and can follow CDC protocols even more than a restaurant can.

Eating is far more essential. Also you eat with people know you know rather than some random person. So it’s safer to go to a restaurant than a church.

Providing community is exactly what we don’t need when we have a highly infectious disease. It is literally harmful.

[SiteWolf]

Eating is far more essential. Also you eat with people know you know rather than some random person. So it’s safer to go to a restaurant than a church.

Providing community is exactly what we don’t need when we have a highly infectious disease. It is literally harmful.

you continue to show how clueless you are on this subject

As I've already said, eating IN A RESTAURANT is no more essential than attending a worship service- you can eat at home, you can worship at home.

You think people are for some reason sitting with random people vs people they know at a worship service?! They're, in fact, more likely to know even the people they're sitting near, let alone with, than they are at a restaurant.

Providing food for the needy is exactly what we don't need, you say. Nice. Pretty sure that's been going on a lot across the country for months, now. Good to know you think that a bad idea.
And talk of community outreach was simply a mechanism to show a church's economic viability anyway.

[Crovash]

you continue to show how clueless you are on this subject

As I've already said, eating IN A RESTAURANT is no more essential than attending a worship service- you can eat at home, you can worship at home.

You think people are for some reason sitting with random people vs people they know at a worship service?! They're, in fact, more likely to know even the people they're sitting near, let alone with, than they are at a restaurant.

Providing food for the needy is exactly what we don't need, you say. Nice. Pretty sure that's been going on a lot across the country for months, now. Good to know you think that a bad idea.

And talk of community outreach was simply a mechanism to show a church's economic viability anyway.

I cannot answer for him, but I believe that I have demonstrated that allowing people to congregate in a restaurant to eat and drink is more economically essential than allowing people to congregate in a church or the like in order to worship, pray, sing — whatever.

Yes, both can be done at home. And both should be done at home under certain public health circumstances.

But the economic effect of people not going to restaurants to eat is certainly more immediate and potentially more harmful than people not going to church to worship. And this is especially true if you consider the possible domino effect (the cook in the restaurant attends the local church with her husband and they regularly contribute financially to the church, and the church’s food bank. In addition, her husband volunteers at the soup kitchen. She loses her job...you get my point).

[rhino17]

yes, eating and drinking is essential...is it essential for it to be done in a restaurant?
I would suggest I am losing less eating at home vs a restaurant than I am worshiping at home and not at a church

I would suggest those are exactly the same situations. Both can be done from home just fine. Both can be done outdoors in secure settings. Just treat them the same.

We can't eat in a restaurant but I could attend a church service if I did that kind of thing. That isn't fair at all.

[spliff(TONE)]

Can't? lol there's a difference between can't and didn't...
but if I were to list Bible verses about the power of gathering together or the spiritual importance of taking holy communion, etc, you'd just refute it anyway

I'm well aware that there's a difference between "can't" and "won't". Either way about it, you sure sidestepped the very simple question I asked you (and continue to avoid giving a straight answer).

So again, I'll ask you: what are churches not being allowed to do that other non-essential establishments are being allowed to do? I know taking holy communion (or anything like it) isn't one of them. In fact, that "answer" is an obvious shifting of the goalposts....which is exactly what I was expecting you to do.

[spliff(TONE)]

The question wasn't whether one could worship at home, the question was whether eating in a restaurant was any more or less essential than worshiping in a group. So no, I don't see it irrelevant that I think worshiping in a group is of more importance than eating in public.

Are you trying to claim that you can't successfully worship as a group via video or audio chat? Obviously it's not exactly the same as in person group worship but it's a very reasonable alternative.

Not to mention, that at least in my area, restaurants are functioning as dine in outside at a distance or to go only currently. The way I see it, both restaurants and churches should be able to operate outdoors and at a distance. Winter makes it tougher but things are tough for most everyone during a deadly, worldwide pandemic.

It's seeming more and more to me that you simply believe the church deserves special privileges during these times.

[SiteWolf]

I'm well aware that there's a difference between "can't" and "won't". Either way about it, you sure sidestepped the very simple question I asked you (and continue to avoid giving a straight answer).

So again, I'll ask you: what are churches not being allowed to do that other non-essential establishments are being allowed to do? I know taking holy communion (or anything like it) isn't one of them. In fact, that "answer" is an obvious shifting of the goalposts....which is exactly what I was expecting you to do.

I sidestepped nothing. The conversation has gotten convoluted with things like economic impact and whether people know who they're sitting by for cripes sake. The original discussion that I joined in on was the SCOTUS decision that didn't allow NY to restrict churches MORE than other businesses. I'm not the one that said they were being allowed to do less; that, in fact, was the point of the decision.

If you want to call answering mutliple questions from multiple directions while attempting to compare religious facilities directly with the quite different dynamics of other businesses moving goalposts, then play on.

[spliff(TONE)]

Eating is far more essential. Also you eat with people know you know rather than some random person. So it’s safer to go to a restaurant than a church.

Providing community is exactly what we don’t need when we have a highly infectious disease. It is literally harmful.

Nothing wrong with providing an online community though; which these churches are more than capable of doing.