Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay, me and fellow coworker was talking and I think many people have started thinking the same thing. Why is it okay to go to work, wear a mask and be around a lot of people however it's not okay to go to church, wear a mask, and be around a lot of people? These half measures are not doing anything. We got a bet going that in the next week or 2 people are going to start saying screw it. It's not that big of a deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,462 Posts
Churches were declared essential here in Texas but I didn't see any open for business around here.

I missed it because I'm only a Christian two weeks a year. Easter and Christmas. Rest of the year I'm a heathen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,598 Posts
Okay, me and fellow coworker was talking and I think many people have started thinking the same thing. Why is it okay to go to work, wear a mask and be around a lot of people however it's not okay to go to church, wear a mask, and be around a lot of people? These half measures are not doing anything. We got a bet going that in the next week or 2 people are going to start saying screw it. It's not that big of a deal.
There could be lots of reasons but the one that comes to mind is in your workplace you have adults, many are fairly healthy whereas in church you have very old, frail people and very young snot factories.. I mean children running around like you threw seed out for the chickens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
This does not have nothing to do with church. however, doing two things that are virtually identical, regaurdless of reason, one is okay and one is not. That is what I am saying. Can't act like one is okay and the other is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,717 Posts
As someone who is not a fan of organized religion in this country I agree with the Ops point. Why are certain things good and other bad when at the core they are the same thing? Why is it ok for people to get together in on circumstance and not another.

You will never catch me willingly going to a church (with the exception of instances for other people weddings, funerals etc) and I don't see it as a church issue. Its a valid government policy question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian845

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thank you someone who understands what I am saying.
As someone who is not a fan of organized religion in this country I agree with the Ops point. Why are certain things good and other bad when at the core they are the same thing? Why is it ok for people to get together in on circumstance and not another.

You will never catch me willingly going to a church (with the exception of instances for other people weddings, funerals etc) and I don't see it as a church issue. Its a valid government policy question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This is why it is wrong. It matters not that some feel they may become ill or any other reason. Those in fear need not attend and are free to cloister themselves at home with their family but those that feel the need to worship with their fellow parishioners are, not should be, free to do so. Stopping services is another of the first things done when a government wants to call its dog to heel; along with gathering up these same peoples' arms.

Now I am not saying that is what is going on but if we just sit back and accept it we may just wake up and find out very quickly that it was and that the people have very little recourse. Church services are a strong community motivator and if one was wanting to crush their opposition then keeping people separated and out of church is a very good way to keep them from easily mobilizing. :mad:

PS: let us not try the, "This is an Executive Branch decision, not a Legislative Branch decision". A-1 guarantees the free practice of religion and I am confident the Founders would not have said, "Well one can practice their religion without going to church so it is fine".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
34,949 Posts
Churches were declared essential here in Texas but I didn't see any open for business around here.

I missed it because I'm only a Christian two weeks a year. Easter and Christmas. Rest of the year I'm a heathen.
Well, here's Pastor James if you need a service. :D Yep, we're down right now. I'm just waiting with baited breath to get back to normal services.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,524 Posts
I've had this discussion before and I don't agree that someone else's fear or even a declared emergency is a valid reason to dissolve any of my rights. Common sense tells me to stay home, but I should have the right to decide for myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
This does not have nothing to do with church. however, doing two things that are virtually identical, regaurdless of reason, one is okay and one is not. That is what I am saying. Can't act like one is okay and the other is not.
My feeling is the government should provide direction and advise without stepping on constitutional rights. People can make their own decisions.
Just for the sake of expanding the discussion; what to do if some who knows that they are contagious continues to participate in activities with others who do not know the carrier is sick?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,944 Posts
I've had this discussion before and I don't agree that someone else's fear or even a declared emergency is a valid reason to dissolve any of my rights. Common sense tells me to stay home, but I should have the right to decide for myself.
When you're dealing with a communicable disease with a long, symptom-free latency period after you get the virus, what you're describing is a recipe for disaster. A disaster involving tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,598 Posts
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This is why it is wrong. It matters not that some feel they may become ill or any other reason. Those in fear need not attend and are free to cloister themselves at home with their family but those that feel the need to worship with their fellow parishioners are, not should be, free to do so. Stopping services is another of the first things done when a government wants to call its dog to heel; along with gathering up these same peoples' arms.

Now I am not saying that is what is going on but if we just sit back and accept it we may just wake up and find out very quickly that it was and that the people have very little recourse. Church services are a strong community motivator and if one was wanting to crush their opposition then keeping people separated and out of church is a very good way to keep them from easily mobilizing. :mad:

PS: let us not try the, "This is an Executive Branch decision, not a Legislative Branch decision". A-1 guarantees the free practice of religion and I am confident the Founders would not have said, "Well one can practice their religion without going to church so it is fine".
Sorry to destroy your argument but it could never hold up. Congress did not pass any law in this aspect. The Federal gov't is not prohibiting church gatherings. So that rules out the constitutional argument. The correct legal statutes to use are:
42 USC 1983
5 USC 241
5 USC 242
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasAviator

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,717 Posts
I've had this discussion before and I don't agree that someone else's fear or even a declared emergency is a valid reason to dissolve any of my rights. Common sense tells me to stay home, but I should have the right to decide for myself.
Spot on BigBlue. You do what you feel is right for you and other can do the same. If they worry about catching this little cold then fine, they can wall themselves off as best they can. If they are like me and would rather not catch it but are ok if they do and weigh other activities higher than staying home out of fear then thats good too.

It is not my responsibility to protect others nor is it theirs to protect me from something I don't even view as a threat to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Well, when one is informed they have the corona virus, they need to be told too stay in. Now, if this person is still going out and spreading the disease well, punish them accordingly. Same as a person with AIDS not informing their partners, it's a crime. Punishing an individual for their actions and making people take responsibility for their situation is the first step in restoring the country back to its former glory. Our society has come to the point where our country blames people who are being constructive members of society and taking care of themselves for those not making it and taking care of themselves. There is no incentive to do the right thing and the justice system has become so slanted, compassionate, and sympathetic to criminals.
My feeling is the government should provide direction and advise without stepping on constitutional rights. People can make their own decisions.
Just for the sake of expanding the discussion; what to do if some who knows that they are contagious continues to participate in activities with others who do not know the carrier is sick?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top