And yet, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a state will be able to defend a blanket prohibition against all religious gatherings of any kind. What if, for example, a church were to assemble and maintain social distancing?
And yet, on the other other hand, it seems like a really bad idea for a church to make a point of exercising their rights at this time.
I Cor 8:11
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.
I feel like we have to let the churches do what they want here. They're being totally reckless and people are going to die because of it–but I think the implications of stopping them would be even worse long-term.
Is it not also murder to host an event bringing together people who are likely carrying a highly infectitious deadly disease to sit indoors with other people who are likely to die from that disease?
The right to not be treated worse than others does not give you the right to be treated better than them. If schools, conventions, concerts, etc. are prohibited, so should church gatherings. Freedom of religion (which is what the 14th amendment is basically about) is meant to prevent treating religious groups unfairly. Treating them the same as basically everyone else sounds pretty fair to me...
The free exercise clause is part of the 1st amendment, and means just what it says. The federal government may not infringe on the free exercise of religion.
A concert may look like a religious gathering, but it is not. The legal barrier to prohibiting a religious gathering is far higher, and for good reason - given a simple perusal of history.
The 14th amendment has been interpreted to incorporate the bill of rights (which includes the free exercise clause) into governing the powers of the states as well. This was not necessarily the case prior to the Civil War.
It is true that gathering together is dangerous at this time. It is also true that it is dangerous to allow panicked officials to abridge our rights without due process.
The First Amendment can be abridged under the same conditions as the others: when it serves a compelling governmental interest. This is subject to the strict scrutiny which comes with abridging Constitutional rights; it must be done via the least restrictive means possible, through a rule narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. (In the case of the first amendment specifically, it must also be a viewpoint-neutral rule.)
This is a high bar to clear. It's not clear that all lockdowns clear it. (It's also not clear that, should they fail to clear it, there will be any effective remedy in the courts, because of qualified immunity.)
If you’re in the religious media silos, you’ve seen a steady stream of police chasing people out of church parking lots, trying to “gather” safely — listening to the preacher on low power FM, in separate cars with the windows up.
Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations.
If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.
You do not die from the virus by parking in a lot, all things being equal.
And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs.
If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.
Yes, but the Sunday service provides nourishment for your soul, which they may decide is more valuable than life itself. Are you going to say they are wrong? Well, you're welcome to say that, and I'd happen to agree with you in practice, but our jurisprudence does not allow us to make that decision for others.
Thus there is a strong case that, to the extent to which the government stops these services, it cannot be because they say that this is not essential. Rather, it must be because the measures stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, and that no narrower measures would suffice.
(And if you did want to actually make Sunday services happen, you'd be well served by devising narrow measures that do suffice.)
Personally I think it's a stupid idea to worship in general, but within the context of a believer who believes that God blesses them for good actions and loves them, perhaps they feel like God will protect them. Or if they do die, they'll be rewarded handsomely for being true believers and dying as martyrs.
They obviously haven't considered that maybe they'll be punished in the afterlife for knowingly endangering others for the sake of their own perceived salvation.
They realized the plague could be transmitted by proximity. That's why most people shunned the dead and dying, except Christians.
Arguably, we are overdoing our understanding of germs. It's very unlikely a mere church service would spread covid-19. People have to be practically coughing in each others face to spread it in a social gathering.
One person spread COVID-19 to 45 out of 60 other participants at a choral recital near where I live, before the lockdown was in place. All in the span of one recital. 2 of them are now dead. 3 more ended up in the hospital.
They followed all the recommended pandemic safety procedures - there was no person-to-person contact, none of the attendees felt sick, there was no sneezing or coughing, everyone kept distance from eachother. Simply singing in the same room was enough to spread the virus.
And many of those who did not die were still infected and spread the disease to those they were closest to.
If given a bowl of skittles and being told that 2% of them are poisonous to those over 50, would you then hand that bowl to your grandparents? Would you take them to a normally attended service and hand them out to everyone within 6’ of you?
Estimates put it between 1 and 3%, last I looked. The specific number doesn't change the magnitudes of difference in mortality rates between the two diseases - they can not be considered to be equivalent.
Yep, the Skagit Valley Chorale had a single practice where they practiced social distancing in the room, but about 1/3 of the people who showed up caught covid and 4% of them died.
If you read about the religious sect, it has huge services where people have to sit on the floor because they are 'packed in like sardines'. Not quite the same as your typical church.
So, maybe this could be an argument against the massive mega churches. But, not a blanket ban on all religious gatherings, period.
'These research findings have already provided some indication on how the virus works, as Streeck clarified:
“There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time, for example the après- ski parties in Ischgl, Austria.” He could also not find any evidence of ‘living’ viruses on surfaces. “When we took samples from door handles, phones or toilets it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs….”
“To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.” Streeck therefore believes that there is little chance of transmission through contact with so-called contaminated surfaces.'
No we absolutely cannot. I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
I, also, wish that you did not live in my country.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with a whole bunch of you who don't understand what the Constitution says, and who get really mad whenever you find out that your extremely simplistic reading wasn't actually what it means.
Thank you for using such a dumb reductio ad absurdum response to extremely clearly indicate that you're not serious, you're not informed, and that you have absolutely no fucking idea what rights Americans have.
I hope that you and the rest of your family enjoy a large in-person Easter religious service.
You're clearly doing flamewar, that's clearly not what HN is for, regardless of how right you are or which side you're fighting for. It destroys the intended spirit of this place.
Constitutionally protected rights aren't absolute though. And Churches are required to obey all sorts of laws already. Mundane the city can demand that a Church fix their leaking sewer lateral. And red tag their building if they don't.
I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
dang flagged and deleted this highly upvoted comment so I will repost:
No, we cannot all agree on that.
I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
Not cool. Since it's clear you don't want to use HN as intended, I've banned this account. If that changes, you're welcome to let us know at hn@ycombinator.com.
Lowe's and Home Depot are open, Sherwin-Williams paint stores are open, the gun stores are open... People have different views on what is essential, to them, and nationally we don't have any agreement on what is and isn't essential or vital. There are many exceptions. Yes, to many people, their church is a vital service.
They probably could be. Policy responses have erred on the side of caution, which is entirely fair, but it's unlikely that clothing stores or bookshops are a significant vector of infection.
"social distancing" is 1984 language - orwell couldn't dream this shit up - open the fucking country! fire fucking fauci!, cuomo and && gavin and those others should go rot in jail
This made me laugh out loud. Early this afternoon I walked by a local church on the way to do some shopping and there was a group of 8 or 9 people kneeling in front of it praying. They were holding signs with various slogans, one of which said exactly that: Churches are vital business.
I should mention this is a Catholic church that serves the Eucharist during every mass where multiple people hand out wafers to eat, using their bare hands.
[edit: grammar and additions]
Catholicism has a long storied history, so there are provisions for almost everything.
I remember in school learning that if you were on shipwrecked on a desert island, you or anyone else could perform sacraments yourself and they would count just as well as if they were done by a priest.
This is the practice of “spiritual communion”. In modern times, it has most notably been used where a person is sick, or otherwise inaccessible to a priest (e.g. stuck in a mine shaft or on an oil rig or in space). This is currently what the Catholic Pope is promoting.
There is also a happy debate going on about if you can perform sacraments via the internet. There is nothing liturgical about distance to the participant. The rules regarding sacraments are more about intention and who is performing it. Some priest believe that physical presence is always unimportant, but our slow moving Papacy takes a more conservative stance.
Finding the worst crackpots and giving them a platform is not good journalism. Instead, Reuters should be reaching out to the >> 99% of churches that are sane and finding out what they're doing to help people being affected by the virus and recession.
... but interviewing sane people doesn't generate clicks.
South Korea’s initial big spike in cases came from a single superspreader going to a religious gathering. It’s not unreasonable to highlight the potential for that here.
I'm not familiar with South Korean church practices, but there is an instance of a choir practice in the US that spread COVID-19 fairly effectively. This suggests that singing, a common practice in US churches (in my experience), spreads the disease. An article on the event reports that the choir members attempted to distance themselves from each other and use hand sanitizer.
Yes, many. My point is the chorale group is not representative of all church group demographics. If people can shop safely, they can go to church safely.
Social distancing in a church, given a 6’ distance requirement, 2’ per seat wide, and 3’ from center of one row to the next, would mean that 1/8 of the normal congregation could fit in the chapel. Half are immediately out, because you would need at least every other row empty. In a given row, 1 of 4 seats would be filled, to maintain 6’ between individuals.
On Easter Sunday, churches are full to the point where they have multiple services throughout the day to accommodate everybody. So, while possible, it’s not reasonable to hold an Easter Sunday church service in these times.
To stop you and your family from being exposed to the virus.
And potentially my family, if you decide to cough on my groceries after the service. since you think it's safe to shop, congregate in large groups, etc.
Considering how the virus spreads, and how quickly, it makes perfect sense to cover and interview these people. If they were only hurting themselves, then maybe they could be ignored. But they're not. They're putting their families, and communities at risk.
That seems unreasonable. "Churches" is an enormous and highly general category. That's analogous to criticising a story on a business doing something controversial or dangerous instead of exclusively interviewing the thousands of businesses doing good.
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
How important is communion in those churches? From what I can see none of them are Anglican, orthodox, or Roman Catholic. They’re all evangelical Protestant.
Is the poster a demon, a god, a bot, a human, or speaking on behalf of one? Of course I know the poster's intent, but the point is obviously controversial, so I was just calling it out. Plenty of religious people on HN with as much or more evidence to believe what they believe as the op has for their beliefs, but who don't feel the need to antagonize.
I quoted predominantly christian admonitions about not being this kind of a jerk because that's the group discussed in the article. You can pick hadiths, talmudic excerpts, etc. from texts of more or less any major religion if you'd prefer to drive home the same point when the audience changes.
If you think athiests are somehow exempt from constructing "religions and traditions and laws and customs and rituals in order to live", I think you're sorely mistaken. That behavior is as foundationally human as bipedalism and tool use.
Trouble is that singing in a confined space is an excellent recipe for spreading coronavirus. One early hotspot in a rural area, totally unequipped to deal with the scale of the outbreak, was Albany, GA, where someone brought the virus to a funeral service. Dougherty County (~ 90000 inhabitants) is now at 1062 cases, when surrounding counties have maybe 50 or 100 cases. Chambers County (~ 30000 citizens) in Alabama has 168 cases, traceable to a church.
Permitting the God-tempters to carry on is madness. It must be permitted for physicians to say "Fuck off and die, leave civilized society alone".
“...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;”
Ecclesiastes 3:5
The whole of Ecclesiastes is especially good in tough times. The book itself has many stoic qualities. But this part, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, rings so true right now:
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
All: Flamewar of any flavor is off topic here. If the indignation/information ratio of your forthcoming comment is high, please self-isolate until signal/noise returns at least to normal.
As a Pastafarian, it is interesting to me that folks are justifying their behavior based on delusional historical beliefs. I am now brainstorming how the Satanists might reply to this; they are keen to examine poor Christian behavior and satirize it [0][1][2][3].
Hi! Lucky 10000: Exodus likely didn't happen [0]; there aren't any obvious good dates or corroborating evidence, and lots of contradictory [1] and countervailing [2][3] evidence to the standard assumption that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh. Additionally, Luke's pretext is flatly contradicted by historical records [4] and based on a comedy of translation errors [5]. Hope this helps!
122 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 243 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
On the other hand, it is not a suicide pact.
And yet, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a state will be able to defend a blanket prohibition against all religious gatherings of any kind. What if, for example, a church were to assemble and maintain social distancing?
And yet, on the other other hand, it seems like a really bad idea for a church to make a point of exercising their rights at this time.
I Cor 8:11
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
The free exercise clause is part of the 1st amendment, and means just what it says. The federal government may not infringe on the free exercise of religion.
A concert may look like a religious gathering, but it is not. The legal barrier to prohibiting a religious gathering is far higher, and for good reason - given a simple perusal of history.
The 14th amendment has been interpreted to incorporate the bill of rights (which includes the free exercise clause) into governing the powers of the states as well. This was not necessarily the case prior to the Civil War.
It is true that gathering together is dangerous at this time. It is also true that it is dangerous to allow panicked officials to abridge our rights without due process.
This is a high bar to clear. It's not clear that all lockdowns clear it. (It's also not clear that, should they fail to clear it, there will be any effective remedy in the courts, because of qualified immunity.)
Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations.
If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.
You do not die missing a Sunday service or a few.
And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs.
If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.
Thus there is a strong case that, to the extent to which the government stops these services, it cannot be because they say that this is not essential. Rather, it must be because the measures stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, and that no narrower measures would suffice.
(And if you did want to actually make Sunday services happen, you'd be well served by devising narrow measures that do suffice.)
Arguably, we are overdoing our understanding of germs. It's very unlikely a mere church service would spread covid-19. People have to be practically coughing in each others face to spread it in a social gathering.
They followed all the recommended pandemic safety procedures - there was no person-to-person contact, none of the attendees felt sick, there was no sneezing or coughing, everyone kept distance from eachother. Simply singing in the same room was enough to spread the virus.
The chorus group was unfortunately in the much older category
> The youngest of those sickened was 31, but they averaged 67, according to the health department.
that is most susceptible to covid-19.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...
AGE
DEATH RATE
80+ years old
14.8%
70-79 years old
8.0%
60-69 years old
3.6%
50-59 years old
1.3%
40-49 years old
0.4%
30-39 years old
0.2%
20-29 years old
0.2%
10-19 years old
0.2%
0-9 years old
no fatalities
If given a bowl of skittles and being told that 2% of them are poisonous to those over 50, would you then hand that bowl to your grandparents? Would you take them to a normally attended service and hand them out to everyone within 6’ of you?
e.g. in countries that test outside those admitted to hospital, iceland and south korea, the fatality is less than 1%
Some people are more likely to have severe symptoms or be hospitalised or die, but we think anyone can catch it and spread it.
those who can catch it without problem, should, so they can develop immunity and be a buffer for the vulnerable
So, maybe this could be an argument against the massive mega churches. But, not a blanket ban on all religious gatherings, period.
Have you considered publishing a paper?
https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185....
'These research findings have already provided some indication on how the virus works, as Streeck clarified:
“There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time, for example the après- ski parties in Ischgl, Austria.” He could also not find any evidence of ‘living’ viruses on surfaces. “When we took samples from door handles, phones or toilets it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs….”
“To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.” Streeck therefore believes that there is little chance of transmission through contact with so-called contaminated surfaces.'
I'm certainly not changing my behaviour based on that single study.
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with a whole bunch of you who don't understand what the Constitution says, and who get really mad whenever you find out that your extremely simplistic reading wasn't actually what it means.
Thank you for using such a dumb reductio ad absurdum response to extremely clearly indicate that you're not serious, you're not informed, and that you have absolutely no fucking idea what rights Americans have.
I hope that you and the rest of your family enjoy a large in-person Easter religious service.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But you left his nonsensical 'everyone should agree with (my naive and uninformed opinion)' take up.
Please don't moderate like that on HN.
No, we cannot all agree on that.
I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:
The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
No, we cannot all agree on that.
I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states: The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.
Also, flagging gets done by users. That's not a power reserved solely for mods.
But sure, maybe the guy who told me that he killed my posts and account was just lying to me.
I guess next you'll tell me a church is a vital business like a grocery store.
Gun stores are open because the NRA threatened to sue and states don’t want the fight right now. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/nra-new-york-gun-sto...
As for your first sentence: He's never home anyway! I've tried often enough. My new motto is "God helps those who help themselves!"
I should mention this is a Catholic church that serves the Eucharist during every mass where multiple people hand out wafers to eat, using their bare hands. [edit: grammar and additions]
I remember in school learning that if you were on shipwrecked on a desert island, you or anyone else could perform sacraments yourself and they would count just as well as if they were done by a priest.
This is the practice of “spiritual communion”. In modern times, it has most notably been used where a person is sick, or otherwise inaccessible to a priest (e.g. stuck in a mine shaft or on an oil rig or in space). This is currently what the Catholic Pope is promoting.
There is also a happy debate going on about if you can perform sacraments via the internet. There is nothing liturgical about distance to the participant. The rules regarding sacraments are more about intention and who is performing it. Some priest believe that physical presence is always unimportant, but our slow moving Papacy takes a more conservative stance.
... but interviewing sane people doesn't generate clicks.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/washington-choir-rehearsal-tur...
On Easter Sunday, churches are full to the point where they have multiple services throughout the day to accommodate everybody. So, while possible, it’s not reasonable to hold an Easter Sunday church service in these times.
And potentially my family, if you decide to cough on my groceries after the service. since you think it's safe to shop, congregate in large groups, etc.
Being young just means they don't die easily, but they are quite capable of catching the virus and spreading to others who may die more easily.
> Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
If you think athiests are somehow exempt from constructing "religions and traditions and laws and customs and rituals in order to live", I think you're sorely mistaken. That behavior is as foundationally human as bipedalism and tool use.
Permitting the God-tempters to carry on is madness. It must be permitted for physicians to say "Fuck off and die, leave civilized society alone".
This is all a fraud.
Fuck you liberal fucks!
Ecclesiastes 3:5
The whole of Ecclesiastes is especially good in tough times. The book itself has many stoic qualities. But this part, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, rings so true right now:
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
Now is the time to refrain from embracing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Baphomet
[2] https://protectchildrenproject.com/
[3] https://apnews.com/6addf2f0ecb646919cb1cfcfdacfc6c1
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Origins_and_histori...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#Mummy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Hittite_peace...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun-her-khepeshef
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah