The Church Vs. The State Civil Disobedience

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Some are hierarchal and some are egalitarian.
Pandemic restrictions are not hierarchical. They apply to all humans, worldwide, in varying rotations. The virus can kill people of any status, but because of crowded working and living conditions and worse general health, poor people are more at risk. If you want to talk hierarchy...Kings and queens and presidents have been given the vaccine before most health care workers.
 
What cruel treatment over a long time did he undergo?
He is sitting in a jail cell for a reason.
He did not undergo cruel treatment ... and he realized that he was evading it by not challenging the State.
And that is the reason he is sitting in a jail cell he decided to follow his conscience and dared to criticize the state publicly.
In his last sermon before his arrest ... he challenged the state to repent.
 
They were 'pious' all along ... they did not close their church unless it was the 'right' (as in not wrong) protocol to follow as a common sense measure ... and when it was open it was not just for 1 hour on a Sunday afternoon for a sermon that was discriminatory against any person that was not a 'member' in good standing ... it was open to all who wanted to avail themselves of the many services that were provided on a daily basis. You really should get the whole story before you make your judgements.
Not pious in other ways prior to covid. They are following what some churches down south have done.
 
They were 'pious' all along ... they did not close their church unless it was the 'right' (as in not wrong) protocol to follow as a common sense measure ... and when it was open it was not just for 1 hour on a Sunday afternoon for a sermon that was discriminatory against any person that was not a 'member' in good standing ... it was open to all who wanted to avail themselves of the many services that were provided on a daily basis. You really should get the whole story before you make your judgements.

Oh, so in addition to flouting guidelines for an hour or so on Sunday, they were "open and business as usual"? (Wow, in my congregation, that would put a substantial portion of this end of town in danger, when you consider the dozens of groups that use our space, for something between free and cheap.)

I think I see even better reasons to rein in the behaviour of this potential super-spreader advocate.

And live-streamed, and then YouTubed services are possibly the least discriminatory, theoretically, that there are. We don't know who is watching/participating, and we certain don't care. The more the merrier! And, although there are a very few (elderly) congregants who can't manage computer access, almost all can, or can visit with or go to a place where they can.
 
People have died in LTC homes because people working in them picked it up from somewhere in the community. Sitting side by side in churches, hugging, touching hands, singing - all those things done in close community increase the risk and contribute to the spread. It's restricted in part because of how many in the church going communities in general are elderly.

I guess Rev John's post went right over your head - about an Alberta church who was careful about guidelines that kept the church open - had a day to honour someone - and that someone died of covid!

If people don't stop acting like hotheaded teenagers about these rules - the rules, and covid, just go on longer. Their behaviour isn't freeing anybody from anything. It's making it harder for others.
 
Last edited:
I was reading a thread elsewhere, written by someone who has a severe disability who hasn't been out since March last year because it's too risky to herself and others she knows - she's also scared to end up being cut short in the hospital "triage" process. Think of people like her. You appear to care only about yourself because you cannot empathize with those who would be killed by the total unrestricted freedom you advocate.

The longer you drag this out - opposing the restrictions, opposing the vaccine - the longer covid drags on. And the longer people like this woman have to stay stuck inside.
 
and that someone died!
and so have many others died ... directly related to obeying the rules ... and ignoring that reality does no one good. People die. Trying to prevent them dying from only one pathogen and ignoring all of the rest is just not logical. The rules are causing too much collateral damage and denying that is just delusional.
 
and so have many others died ... directly related to obeying the rules ... and ignoring that reality does no one good. People die. Trying to prevent them dying from only one pathogen and ignoring all of the rest is just not logical. The rules are causing too much collateral damage and denying that is just delusional.
Read my above post. People like her are collateral damage for you.
 
Well Rita, do you put your actions where your mouth is? Have you found a crowded church this Sunday that you will be able to enjoy the service?
 
Well Rita, do you put your actions where your mouth is? Have you found a crowded church this Sunday that you will be able to enjoy the service?
If there was a church that I wanted to attend and that church was open to the public I would go to that church ... and I would respect the protocol that the church has decided on. If that church was crowded I would not hesitate because of it. If not all of the people in that church were antisocial distancing or wearing masks It would not bother me in the least. As a general rule I do not go to church on a regular sunday basis.

Today I would have liked to go to a service in a chapel for a dearly recently departed but the restrictions will not accommodate that. 10 people are allowed ... those 10 are in agreement with the restrictions so they are carrying on with the dearly deceased wishes to the best of their ability.

In this case there will be no 'virtual' option available. No obituary is yet to be found for fear of those not so rule oriented showing up in spite of the restrictions.

Were the restrictions not in place ... the number of voices singing a celebration of her life would have raised the rafters of the chapel.
 
Last edited:
And live-streamed, and then YouTubed services are possibly the least discriminatory, theoretically, that there are. We don't know who is watching/participating, and we certain don't care.
Yes I have always enjoyed being able to view The Big Red Church virtually. And I have virtually enjoyed services as broadcast from your own church as well. And I have been able to virtually participate in many other services including Grace Life where Pastor Coates was resident. All besides the point. The point being ... the restrictions are not in keeping with a 'first do no harm' medical perspective. The science to back that up is being 'persecuted' out of the debate. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
 
Unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of ...
8 weeks is a long time if you are holding your breath.

It isn't a long-time if you forgo bail and get credit for time served should you not win an acquittal.

Typical time served equation is two days reduction for every day of confinement waiting for trial.

So an eight week stay results, ordinarily in a 16 week sentence reduction.
 
The point being ... the restrictions are not in keeping with a 'first do no harm' medical perspective.

They are exactly in keeping with "first do no harm"!!!! The very FIRST step in dealing with a pandemic is slowing the spread of the disease.

Masking, distancing, are perfect examples of public health initiatives that help many, hurt almost no-one. Lockdowns hurt businesses, and I could give a s**t about them; they'll be back. They also have some detrimental effects on mental health, but again, mental health can recover; dead is dead.

Now, if you're talking about the ability of people to die peacefully of "other stuff", that's certainly been bad, but it's still not "harm", as a deliberate action, as opposed to a possible result of an initiative to protect a larger number of people.

Unless humanity gets it perfect, there will always be situations where the needs of the many will trump the needs of a few.
 
And it can't have escaped anyone that it is "medical professionals" advocating these preventive measures.
 
Back
Top