Tampa police issue arrest warrant for patsor holding Sunday service - General Discussion Discussion

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It seems to be a bit much.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

Agreed, a intermediary is needed.

Interesting constitutional argument. Where exactly do the rights of freedom of religion end in a pandemic?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14687) 4 years ago

It's probably the double mass with 2 collection plates that's kinda egregious.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It’s only okay if they can socially distance by 1.5 meters. Hard to do.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

It's not difficult: if you're allowing some seniors to go to Church, then you should allow the rest to go to the movie theather, or to concerts, or having some beers with friends. Double standards are a very bad idea.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

The government can order a shut down of bars and theaters.

Are you ok with the government giving the order to shut down a church?

Because THAT would be new.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

And why not?

You like to spend your spare time in the Church? That's OK, but I'd rather spend that time in the pub. If we're shutting down one of them, we should shut down the other one. Otherwise it's a double standard.

Besides that, you can watch the preach online, but you can't get a good pint of beer online. If something is to be open, it should be the pub.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

I am not very religious man, but I am an American.

Many here in the USA would not be ok with giving the government the power to shut down churches.

Freedom of religion is a core tennant here in the USA. Giving the government the power to restrict or shut down churches is a very high hurdle.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

And however you want to give the government the power to restrict or shut down pubs, restricting the freedom of hanging out and having some beers with the people you like. The freedom of choosing the friends you like, and hanging out with them is as important as the freedom of religion. Way more, indeed.

reply

[–] Jamfo (408) 4 years ago

Remember that the same First Amendment that grants freedom of religion also grants the right to peaceably assemble. So if you make an exception for large church gatherings based on a First Amendment argument, you must then allow bars, theaters, and other social spaces to re-open as having folks gather to enjoy a movie or a beer is equally protected by that same First Amendment.

I definitely don't want the government in the habit of picking and choosing which of the freedoms in the First Amendment are sacrosanct and which can be curtailed in unusual circumstances. If events warrant the limitation of one, it must limit them all.

And, it's not like the government is telling people that they do not have the right to worship. Members of that church are still free to worship and pray however they see fit, just not in large groups. The government is not really interfering with their beliefs, it is simply imposing the same limits to all facilities where people gather, no matter what the purpose. Fair and balanced.

I also do not think it helped the case of the pastor that he is a Corona virus conspiracy theorist, so the message he might be espousing in his sermons may actually be doing harm.

Just my two-cents, but I don't believe that religious beliefs should give people a pass on the limits on the numbers allowed at gatherings. To do so actually elevates religion, telling those folks they are special and can do whatever they want due to their beliefs, while others must sit at home and avoid doing things they may find fulfilling, just because it is not religious in nature. We need to treat all groups and situations the same.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

My thoughts exactly, but you explained it much better than me.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Religuous people can just gather in a mega church and then not go outside anymore. If they want coronavirus, fine, please enjoy. Just don't spread it to other unwilling people.

reply

[–] chilone (17251) 4 years ago

That's the thing. I'm a Christian but gathering like that is just stupid AND putting others at risk. People of faith, just like all others need to use common sense. If going to church is required for you to maintain your faith, you're doing it wrong.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

I'm an Atheist, but in my opinion it's more than doing it wrong. If going to church during a pandemic is putting other people at risk, you're doing it terribly wrong included from a Christian perspective.

reply

[–] chilone (17251) 4 years ago

I agree 100%

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"Freedom of religion is a core tennant here in the USA. Giving the government the power to restrict or shut down churches is a very high hurdle."

Its been done hasnt it? churches are included in the "no gathering together in meeting places" rule There is no reason to exclude a bunch a sky fairy worshipping crackpots , or whats the point?

People are still free to be a member of the religion , just not to go endangering the rest of society in the process , although they seem to be getting away with that up to now in other respects.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

It hasn't, churches are currently exempt.

As I said,most pastors/priest/rabbis are sensible and are voluntarily suspending services.

No governor has actually barred church services. It will be big news if one does

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Really? wow.

Surely in a situation this serious the governors should be following orders from the Whitehouse?
Not deciding on their own details like that.

Similarly here in the UK various police forces seem to be interpreting the rules in different ways.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 4 years ago

Always a tug of war between states power and fedral power throughout US history. Since the federal government has almost limitless reserves, in times of a crisis, the states usually follow the feds lead.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"but you can't get a good pint of beer online"
You can get a reasonable one from your fridge though , at half the price :)

reply

[–] tsrt (1088) 4 years ago

Churches can congregate online.

reply

[–] 102000 (6127) 4 years ago

Well, there are a lot of older people who don't know how to do that. I'm strong believer in separation of church and state, but I also don't think a church should be exempt from having gatherings in a time like this. This is Florida, so if they must gather make them hold the service outside with proper distancing.

This will end up in the courts and probably get ugly.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

That, and Christian churches could also offer drive-through communion for those that really need the bread-and-wine.

Really! It's totally doable, in a no-contact way!

Drive up, get a wafer and a sip of wine from a tiny individual cup from your ordained spiritual practitioner, with the appropriate blessings (and a aggressively handled collection plate, because fellow parishoners are undoubtedly losing income) Yes, the spiritual practitioner ought to be changing gloves between cars and wearing a mask if not a face shield, like the doctor that did my nasal swab, and nobody is going to like the process compared to going to church and hugging all your friends, but it's got to meet all the possible requirements for the blessing of the communion.

Every day on the news, I hear another story about infection being passed on through churches, and stupid-ass priests and pastors who won't stop drawing people together, as if God hadn't made viruses. it's got to go no-contact, same as everything else, by force of law if necessary.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Just as a flight of fancy - Were I the judge in this case I would first call the preacher to my chambers and walk up and down his ass for endangering his congregation before sending him home.
Then I'd have the arresting officer in so I could stick my foot in his ass for being too stupid to figure out a better way and send him to his room too.

reply

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

If this pastor cared one whip about those seniors then he could have found a way to reach out to them, not call them to his mega church for TWO services and pass around the collection dish. Why not organize groups of younger parishioners to do shopping runs for them, make phones calls to chat with them, play music outside their windows, etc?

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 4 years ago

I didn't see your post before I responded. Yes, exactly! There are too many other, far more safe solutions than this.

reply

[–] nyctc7 (41184) 4 years ago

The guy is a mass hole.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 4 years ago

I don't think either argument is at odds with or have to be at the expense of the other. They're both valid, the second for people who are religious.

There are other ways for people to attend religious services that don't mean anyone endangering themselves or others. If some or even many are technology-challenged, that could be addressed by other members who aren't helping out.

I don't know the specifics of this, but found this short clip explaining why this action was taken: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/03/30/florida-pastor-arrested-church-service-bts-vpx.wfts

I don't know about FL or the county in which this church is located, but until things get under control again, gatherings of more than 9 people is illegal where I am. (And I wouldn't go to a gathering of more than say 3, anyway.)

reply

[–] kspkap (13008) 4 years ago

It’s in Hillsborough County over where your Florida friend lives...Tampa? BTW, I believe strongly in the 1st Amendment...the government has NO right to infringe on the rights of places of worship (unless a terrorist plot is being planned), but in this case the pastor should have used common sense! Good Lord! There are 2 ways to have held service. Have an online service along with an outdoor under a tent service with parishioners physically spaced. He should not have been arrested, but the officer should have requested the pew sitters to adjourn to the outside with an explanation.

The scriptures do speak of obeying the government powers and this would be the time to obey.

“The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between the believer and the government. We are to obey governmental authorities, and the government is to treat us justly and fairly. Even when the government does not live up to its role, we are still to live up to ours. Finally, when the government asks us to do something that is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, we are to disobey the government in faithful confidence of the Lord’s power to protect us.”

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 4 years ago

My friend moved from the Tampa area back to where she grew up in IN, a, year or so ago, but that's really neither here nor there regarding this.

Exactly, the pastor should have exercised common sense and not endangered the members of his church. It's not like he didn't know better; this is the second time it's happened. There are other ways to conduct a service that doesn't endanger anyone.

Personally, I don't care what the bible says about obeying government. I do care about people being safe and using common sense.

reply