The Briefing Room
State Chapters => Florida => Topic started by: Elderberry on March 30, 2020, 11:39:02 pm
-
FOX 13 News 3/30/2020
Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite 'safer-at-home' orders
The pastor of a Tampa megachurch is facing charges after refusing to close its doors despite a "safer at home" order in effect in Hillsborough County, meant to stop the spread of COVID-19. The sheriff says up to 500 people were in attendance at Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne's Sunday services.
Sheriff Chad Chronister and State Attorney Andrew Warren on Monday announced that an arrest warrant had been issued for Pastor Howard-Browne. He faces misdemeanor charges of unlawful assembly and violation of public health emergency order.
The River at Tampa Bay Church held two services Sunday, Chronister said, and even offered bus transportation for those services. The chuch's livestream showed a packed crowd cheering and applauding.
"They have access to technology allowing them to livestream their services over the internet and broadcast to their 400 members from the safety of their own homes, but instead they chose to gather at church," Chronister said during a press conference.
More: https://www.fox13news.com/news/tampa-megachurch-pastor-arrested-after-leading-packed-services-despite-safer-at-home-orders (https://www.fox13news.com/news/tampa-megachurch-pastor-arrested-after-leading-packed-services-despite-safer-at-home-orders)
-
Hate to see a pastor get arrested for religious assembly, but one would hope some common sense would enter the equation.
-
Hate to see a pastor get arrested for religious assembly, but one would hope some common sense would enter the equation.
Exactly. This is a bundle of things that should not happen. The SiP order should have been voluntary for churches and churches should have the sense sense to suspend services. My county did a SiP order about a week before Newsom made it statewide. All the "mega-churches" I'm aware of in Silicon Valley went to online live-streaming.
-
Apparently freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are subject to the approval of the government. Who knew.
-
Hate to see a pastor get arrested for religious assembly, but one would hope some common sense would enter the equation.
Every pastor with common sense has gone to online services.
The Church is the Church whether it assembles for worship or worship and prays and sings in safety.
In Ohio, there has been a great effort to preserve freedom of religion while asking for common sense and loving, life-saving behavior toward your congregation.
In South Korea, a whole slew of victims were from one large church. This pastor, were he informed and caring, would never have continued to have services. He is a shepherd who is not taking care of his sheep.
I hope and pray that his massive congregation stays well, but judging from other cases, they will not.
-
Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite 'safer-at-home' orders
In my NSHO,that is both immoral and illegal.
What RIGHT does he have to tell free citizens who they CAN associate with and WHERE and WHEN they can do this?
The Governor and the police chief are both violating the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of those free people to both associate with who they want to associate with,as well as to practice their religion.
He could POSSIBLY prevent them from taking minor children to the services for health reasons since they are minors,but not the adults.
This ain't rocket science,folks!
-
Every pastor with common sense has gone to online services.
The Church is the Church whether it assembles for worship or worship and prays and sings in safety.
Neither you,a rabid cult member,or me,who can safely be said to be "not very religious" have the RIGHT to determine how other adults get to practice their religion as long as no actual crimes are being committed.
After all,it ain't like they are sacrificing virgins.
-
Hate to see a pastor get arrested for religious assembly, but one would hope some common sense would enter the equation.
@catfish1957
Common sense and religion are not,and will never be,a happy marriage.
-
Apparently freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are subject to the approval of the government. Who knew.
@Polly Ticks
Glad to see someone else is surprised.
Thanks! It was starting to get lonely on this board.
-
Glad to see someone else is surprised.
Thanks! It was starting to get lonely on this board.
I have no problem with voluntary social distancing. My own church moved to online services and I'm happily attending from my sofa. Having said that, I have a HUGE problem with the government strong-arming churches and businesses to close down and arresting people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, no matter how foolish I may think they are for doing so. They should be free to make their own choices just as I should be.
-
The point is to prevent the assembly, not to prevent religious exercise.
The purpose of preventing the meeting/contact, is to protect everybody from unwanted spreading of the silent virus.
In my opinion that is pro-life more so than a preacher who would encourage risks to other peoples' lives.
The science of pulic health; preventing the spread of contageous diseases instead of individual opinions on such matters.
-
I have no problem with voluntary social distancing. My own church moved to online services and I'm happily attending from my sofa. Having said that, I have a HUGE problem with the government strong-arming churches and businesses to close down and arresting people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, no matter how foolish I may think they are for doing so. They should be free to make their own choices just as I should be.
I understand your perspective and have problems with the arrest.
However, there has been no infringement on the Constitutional right to worship anywhere. The vast majority of us continue to worship freely and even more out in the open than previously, since we are participating in online worship.
As for the right to assemble, the line is fuzzier. I agree that the arrest is extreme, but is one Constitutionally guaranteed the right to have 2,000 people in the same space during a health emergency where assembling threatens the lives of everyone with whom those 2000 have contact?
I'm not so sure.
@Polly Ticks
-
I understand your perspective and have problems with the arrest.
However, there has been no infringement on the Constitutional right to worship anywhere. The vast majority of us continue to worship freely and even more out in the open than previously, since we are participating in online worship.
I understand your perspective and desire to be safe, as well, but there IS an infringement when the government tells me I am not allowed to gather in my church building. I have no plans to do so, because I have some higher risks myself and also have responsibility for my 80-year-old parents who are in rather precarious health. However, that needs to be my choice, not a mandate from Big Brother.
As for the right to assemble, the line is fuzzier. I agree that the arrest is extreme, but is one Constitutionally guaranteed the right to have 2,000 people in the same space during a health emergency where assembling threatens the lives of everyone with whom those 2000 have contact?
Yes, one is guaranteed that right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is no clause in there abrogating that right in the event of zombies, an alien invasion, or a particularly nasty virus. The whole idea is that I have the freedom to choose how to behave, understanding that the consequences of my actions cannot be avoided. If I (or anyone else) am worried about catching a virus, then I am free to stay at home and away from everyone who may possibly be a carrier. I have the rights, and I am free to exercise them or not.
Instead, the government - as governments are wont to do - has inserted itself and mandated what I can and cannot do and now Governor Andy has a snitch line my neighbors can call if they're worried that my kids are playing basketball with someone else's kids. (They're not, by the way, but the point remains. Big Brother is watching.)
-
I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand the church can meet online and not risk the congregation's health, but on the other hand I hate to see the government have this much power. If the government does it once, it will open the floodgates for future problems.
-
I understand your perspective and desire to be safe, as well, but there IS an infringement when the government tells me I am not allowed to gather in my church building. I have no plans to do so, because I have some higher risks myself and also have responsibility for my 80-year-old parents who are in rather precarious health. However, that needs to be my choice, not a mandate from Big Brother.
Yes, one is guaranteed that right.
There is no clause in there abrogating that right in the event of zombies, an alien invasion, or a particularly nasty virus. The whole idea is that I have the freedom to choose how to behave, understanding that the consequences of my actions cannot be avoided. If I (or anyone else) am worried about catching a virus, then I am free to stay at home and away from everyone who may possibly be a carrier. I have the rights, and I am free to exercise them or not.
Instead, the government - as governments are wont to do - has inserted itself and mandated what I can and cannot do and now Governor Andy has a snitch line my neighbors can call if they're worried that my kids are playing basketball with someone else's kids. (They're not, by the way, but the point remains. Big Brother is watching.)
All good points, but where I still believe there is some question is that I don’t believe that my freedom to worship requires my being together in a building with other people when I am free to gather with those same people in front of a screen in the safety of my own home.
I happen to believe there has been more active worship in the past few weeks than in the past. There has been no infringement of worship experiences online whatsoever.
I DO understand the slippery slope issue and I am very uncomfortable with the arrest, but I don’t believe that asking people to stay at home for their safety and the safety of others is going to be a long range problem.
And I am greatly looking forward to the joy we will all have when we get together to praise God together in person again.
-
I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand the church can meet online and not risk the congregation's health, but on the other hand I hate to see the government have this much power. If the government does it once, it will open the floodgates for future problems.
Exactly. I understand the fierce objections to the comparisons between COVID-19 and the season flu, but if you look at it purely from a perspective of the number of deaths what is to stop an unscrupulous and over-reaching government from closing church, school, and/or restaurant doors next winter, as well, when flu deaths again reach the tens of thousands?
All good points, but where I still believe there is some question is that I don’t believe that my freedom to worship requires my being together in a building with other people when I am free to gather with those same people in front of a screen in the safety of my own home.
I happen to believe there has been more active worship in the past few weeks than in the past. There has been no infringement of worship experiences online whatsoever.
Agree that there isn't an issue with what we CAN do. (Although I would note that many older people who aren't as tech-savvy as those who regularly use discussion boards and such aren't having as easy of a time joining their online services.) It's an issue of what we've been told we CAN'T do.
I DO understand the slippery slope issue and I am very uncomfortable with the arrest, but I don’t believe that asking people to stay at home for their safety and the safety of others is going to be a long range problem.
I don't believe that asking them to stay home is a problem, either. It's when we starting mandating that they stay home that there is a problem.
And I am greatly looking forward to the joy we will all have when we get together to praise God together in person again.
And on that, we wholeheartedly agree!
034
-
Exactly. I understand the fierce objections to the comparisons between COVID-19 and the season flu, but if you look at it purely from a perspective of the number of deaths what is to stop an unscrupulous and over-reaching government from closing church, school, and/or restaurant doors next winter, as well, when flu deaths again reach the tens of thousands?
Agree that there isn't an issue with what we CAN do. (Although I would note that many older people who aren't as tech-savvy as those who regularly use discussion boards and such aren't having as easy of a time joining their online services.) It's an issue of what we've been told we CAN'T do.
I don't believe that asking them to stay home is a problem, either. It's when we starting mandating that they stay home that there is a problem.
And on that, we wholeheartedly agree!
034
There is just a shade of difference in our opinions, and I really understand and respect your views.
I would love it if every pastor were responsible and caring enough to advise their congregations to stay home for the next few weeks.
In the long run not getting together for a month beats the heck out of having people suffer and die because your pastor doesn’t use the brain God gave him.
-
I have no problem with voluntary social distancing. My own church moved to online services and I'm happily attending from my sofa. Having said that, I have a HUGE problem with the government strong-arming churches and businesses to close down and arresting people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, no matter how foolish I may think they are for doing so. They should be free to make their own choices just as I should be.
@Polly Ticks
Besides,isn't there something in some old documents not mentioned much these days about "Freedom of Assembly?"
-
I have mixed emotions about this.
@mrpotatohead
Not me. You either have a right,or you have a privilege the state MIGHT let you enjoy occasionally. IF they are in the mood.
On the one hand the church can meet online and not risk the congregation's health,
The personal connection/feeling of Brotherhood/sisterhood many thumpers get from sharing their views with like-minded people in person can't be obtained online. It's an emotional thing.
I
Now,if there are GENUINE concerns about danger, I can see the government banning minor children from attending services,but the adults should left alone to make their own decisions.
You are either free,or you are a subject.
If the government does it once, it will open the floodgates for future problems.
You can bet the farm on that one!
-
Apparently freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are subject to the approval of the government. Who knew.
Yeah... Go figger. Not so unalienable after all.
-
The US has an increasingly "suburbanized population."
People hold a reasonable expectation for their pursuit of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They form government jurisdictions, to maintain public safety, like clean water, measures to mitigate against the spread of contageous diseases.
Individual and group freedoms (rights) extend only to the boundary where the exercize thereof infringes on another's rights.
Early laws dealt with resources like land, grazing, forestry, hunting, water, navigation, air safety, etc.
If this church has a managing authority, they likely purchase liability insurance. That authority should direct the pastor, because his action is criminally negligent. In fact the congregation, should want the guy removed. He could wipe out their financial resources.
Analogy: Owner/manager of public space has knowledge of mold damage.
Said owner takes no steps to remediate said potentially harmful condition. Commercial or residential property. Like apartment dwellers.
Nothing about infringing on religious practice. It is verything about reasonable expectations in modern society.
-
Apparently freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are subject to the approval of the government. Who knew.
So it appears.
The local government, at that!
-
So some here are in agreement that when the government decides to get rid of parts of the first amendment for the greater good, that this is okay.
Next pandemic comes, or any other major, and a progressive is in power, which amendments will it be okay to suspend then?
the 2nd?
the 4th?
the 5th?
Be careful what you wish for.
I want my government to be able to run its affairs, by taking as little money as possible from me and spending it as wisely as they can.
No more.
No less.
Even in times of crisis.
-
So some here are in agreement that when the government decides to get rid of parts of the first amendment for the greater good, that this is okay.
Next pandemic comes, or any other major, and a progressive is in power, which amendments will it be okay to suspend then?
the 2nd?
the 4th?
the 5th?
Be careful what you wish for.
I want my government to be able to run its affairs, by taking as little money as possible from me and spending it as wisely as they can.
No more.
No less.
Even in times of crisis.
I haven't seen anyone say that. And I'm absolutely certain that no one here believes that.
-
Really, more than one post here suggest the current situation trumps (no pun intended) the freedom of assembly, an enumerated right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do not misunderstand, I do not disagree with not assembling right now, but one should not be arrested for it.
I am working from home myself.
So my statement stands, and the part that says that others in power, in times of crisis, will try to suspend other parts of other amendments, that they find "troublesome".
-
Really, more than one post here suggest the current situation trumps (no pun intended) the freedom of assembly, an enumerated right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do not misunderstand, I do not disagree with not assembling right now, but one should not be arrested for it.
I am working from home myself.
So my statement stands, and the part that says that others in power, in times of crisis, will try to suspend other parts of other amendments, that they find "troublesome".
I do not think that questioning the limits of the size of the assembly during a health crisis in any way suggests that the 1st amendment is no longer valid during that crisis.
I also have not seen anyone here say that arresting this pastor was a good thing.
In addition, I will reiterate that the freedom of religion is not being suppressed by stay at home orders because I have seen more assembly in worship during the past few weeks than any time in recent years.
In this day of technology, one does not have to assemble in person to assemble........ so the right to assemble has not really been infringed upon either, has it? I have worshiped every Sunday since our church stopped having in person services, and I know with Zoom large groups can gather as well.
I have no disagreement with being extremely vigilant about what's going on........ especially in liberal states, but I do not believe that the order to not gather in groups larger than 10 violates our first amendment rights.
And folks on the left have already tried to use it to violate the 2nd amendment, so it's kind of a given that they will use anything they can to take our rights away.
-
I do not think that questioning the limits of the size of the assembly during a health crisis in any way suggests that the 1st amendment is no longer valid during that crisis.
I do not think the questioning of not limiting them is wrong, either
I also have not seen anyone here say that arresting this pastor was a good thing.
Nor have I even remotely suggested such a thing.
In addition, I will reiterate that the freedom of religion is not being suppressed by stay at home orders because I have seen more assembly in worship during the past few weeks than any time in recent years.
Again, I did not remotely suggest that, only the freedom of assembly.
In this day of technology, one does not have to assemble in person to assemble........ so the right to assemble has not really been infringed upon either, has it? I have worshiped every Sunday since our church stopped having in person services, and I know with Zoom large groups can gather as well.
For the 3rd time, I haven't suggested otherwise, yet if they choose to assemble by other means, what then?
I have no disagreement with being extremely vigilant about what's going on........ especially in liberal states, but I do not believe that the order to not gather in groups larger than 10 violates our first amendment rights.
Then what number does, 8? 6?
And folks on the left have already tried to use it to violate the 2nd amendment, so it's kind of a given that they will use anything they can to take our rights away.
...and this is one more of those rights that it is happening to.
-
...and this is one more of those rights that it is happening to.
OK........ There is a pastor in PA who is trying to have a Woodstock-like assembly Sunrise Service on Easter and asking people from all over the country to come en masse and be together in a large crowd during the middle of an outbreak of enormous proportions.
Is it an infringement on his rights if the surrounding community doesn't let him do it? Places restrictions?
The reason I bring this up, is that this is a problem that is not easily solved. You mentioned the numbers 6 or 8....... what about several thousands? Is it OK for a community (local government) to say NO to this assembly during this time without violating Constitutional rights?
This is a thorny issue. If it's not the federal government, but the government of Podunktown, PA, is it still infringement of Constitutional rights?
-
Lessons Learned from the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997248/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997248/)
Article talks about closures of schools and businesses and churches and some of the same issues, concerns and disagreements we are seeing today.
Many of the components of current pandemic influenza plans were utilized to some degree in Minneapolis and St. Paul during 1918–1919. Coordination between different levels and branches of government, improved communications regarding the spread of influenza, hospital surge capacity, mass dispensing of vaccines, guidelines for infection control, containment measures including case isolation and closures of public places, and disease surveillance were all employed with varying degrees of success. We focus on medical resources, community disease containment measures, public response to community containment, infection control and vaccination, and communications.
Debate between the two cities on the merits of closing schools caused further strain. Dr. Simon held that St. Paul's school nurses were the best defense against the spread of the disease, and that closing schools would allow cases to go undetected as the children would not be under any medical supervision. Dr. Guilford disagreed, pointing out that 30 school nurses would not be able to adequately care for the 50,000 pupils in the Minneapolis public school system during a pandemic.16 Minneapolis closed the schools on two separate occasions (October 12 to November 17, and December 10 to December 29, 1918).
Despite Dr. Simon's conviction that the closing of public places would be ineffective, on November 6 St. Paul government officials overruled him and enacted a closing order for the whole city, including schools, theaters, churches, and dance halls. The St. Paul Citizens' Committee—consisting of 15 physicians, church leaders, and community members who were appointed by Dr. Simon—which was concerned by the record of 218 new cases on November 5, as well as 36 deaths between November 4 and November 5, 1918, recommended this policy change (Figure 1).17 The number of new cases began to decline 10 days later, with only 24 new cases, and the next day, Dr. Simon reopened St. Paul businesses and churches.
Because clear orders were not being given to public health officials, the public in turn was not receiving transparent and consistent advice and information. Should the public wear masks? Why was it allowable to be next to someone in a streetcar and not in an elevator? Why were church services closed while Red Cross workers gathered in crowded conditions in those very same churches? Was influenza a life-threatening condition, or was panic the most dangerous element of the influenza pandemic? In Minneapolis and St. Paul. there was no single message on any of these issues. In many cases, the public had to decide for itself. In which case, the effect of the messages that were communicated only served to contradict each other.
In reviewing this history, some lessons stand out. Recent analyses of nonpharmaceutical interventions during 1918 indicate cities in which multiple interventions were implemented early in the pandemic fared better.45 Of primary importance is developing a plan ahead of time that incorporates all levels of government health infrastructure and describes clear lines of responsibilities and roles. Plans for surge capacity and community containment must be discussed with stakeholders and consensus must be achieved.
-
How Churches of Christ responded when the 1918 ‘Spanish flu’ killed millions
https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/ (https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/)
-
How DC Churches Responded When the Government Banned Public Gatherings During the Spanish Flu of 1918
https://www.9marks.org/article/how-dc-churches-responded-when-the-government-banned-public-gatherings-during-the-spanish-flu-of-1918/ (https://www.9marks.org/article/how-dc-churches-responded-when-the-government-banned-public-gatherings-during-the-spanish-flu-of-1918/)
-
When was the last time churches in the U.S. were closed?
https://aleteia.org/2020/03/19/when-was-the-last-time-churches-in-the-u-s-were-closed/ (https://aleteia.org/2020/03/19/when-was-the-last-time-churches-in-the-u-s-were-closed/)
Elisabeth A. Eisele of KMOV in St. Louis prepared a report on the extraordinary measures taken by Max C. Starkloff, the St. Louis City Health Commissioner in 1918. It was in an Army barracks that St. Louis had its first influenza cases in early October of that year, and soon, city dwellers started getting sick. Starkloff “took aggressive action and began to shut down the city,†Eisele wrote. The health commissioner closed schools, theaters and places of amusement. He banned public gatherings of more than 20 people. Starkloff went on to close the court, playgrounds, library reading rooms, pool halls, and fraternal lodges. He limited the use of public transportation, and department stores operated under restricted hours.
Sound familiar?
“The following day, [Starkloff] closed churches for the first time in the city’s history,†Eisele wrote. “That earned him the ire of Archbishop John Glennon, who protested that decision, but he eventually temporarily suspended the weekly Mass obligation for Catholics.â€
Missouri Medicine, journal of the Missouri State Medical Association, in a retrospective on the centennial of the 1918 influenza pandemic, wrote that churches eventually were allowed to reopen, with strict attendance limits.
“Fr. Frederick Holweck, pastor at St. Francis de Sales Church, was turned in to the St. Louis police after 200 parishioners were seen in his church, a violation of the city’s anti-crowding ordinance,†the journal wrote. “Fr. Holweck explained that many worshipers had sneaked in through the church’s side windows out of his view. Charges were not pressed.â€
-
How Churches of Christ responded when the 1918 ‘Spanish flu’ killed millions
https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/ (https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/)
Though churches suspended their large assemblies, they did not cease to worship. Rather, as E. D. Shelton, in Fayette City, Pa., wrote, “We worshipped God from house to house.†H. E. Winkler, of Adairville, Ky., and his wife “worshipped in our home†for three weeks. Kurfees recommended his congregants worship in their homes “as was sometimes done in the days of the apostles.â€
Other ministers accepted the quarantines and restrictions without complaint because they recognized one could obey both God and the government. E. C. Fuqua of Fort Collins, Colo., keenly felt the obligation to meet weekly on the Lord’s Day. “Carefully observing [government] restrictions, we feel free to meet a few brethren in a private home and worship according to the New Testament teaching.†In this way, “the assembly thus formed is not unlawful, and the worship rendered is lawful to God,†which demonstrates “loyalty to both.â€
THIS is responsible citizenship and responsible Christianity.
Fascinating articles, @Neverdul ! Thanks for posting them!
-
When was the last time churches in the U.S. were closed?
https://aleteia.org/2020/03/19/when-was-the-last-time-churches-in-the-u-s-were-closed/ (https://aleteia.org/2020/03/19/when-was-the-last-time-churches-in-the-u-s-were-closed/)
St. Louis' response to the Spanish Flu of 1918 is often cited as the best possible response in a medical crisis....... and that includes the responsible behavior of the Church.
Philadelphia is cited as the what-not-to-do response, their behaving similarly to DiBlasio in NYC.
The results were that St. Louis had a significantly lower infection rate, while Philadelphia exacerbated the disaster by not self-isolating.
Isolating is what responsible citizens...... especially Christians MUST do.
-
St. Louis' response to the Spanish Flu of 1918 is often cited as the best possible response in a medical crisis....... and that includes the responsible behavior of the Church.
Philadelphia is cited as the what-not-to-do response, their behaving similarly to DiBlasio in NYC.
The results were that St. Louis had a significantly lower infection rate, while Philadelphia exacerbated the disaster by not self-isolating.
Isolating is what responsible citizens...... especially Christians MUST do.
The interesting thing about Philadelphia is that many doctors warned the public health commissioner (Wilmer Krusen) to cancel the Liberty Loan Parade knowing that it would be the cause of a lot more influenza cases and deaths, which of course it did. The pressure to go ahead with the parade that saw some 200,000 people crowd the parade route was both political and economic. And when you read the articles I posted up thread and others about the “Spanish Fluâ€, it is apparent that everything old is new again but the lessons of history are a hard pill for somepeople to swallow.
For Philadelphia, the fallout was swift and deadly. Two days after the parade, the city’s public health director Wilmer Krusen, issued a grim pronouncement: “The epidemic is now present in the civilian population and is assuming the type found in naval stations and cantonments [army camps].â€
Within 72 hours of the parade (September 28), every bed in Philadelphia’s 31 hospitals was filled. In the week ending October 5, some 2,600 people in Philadelphia had died from the flu or its complications. A week later, that number rose to more than 4,500. With many of the city’s health professionals pressed into military service, Philadelphia was unprepared for this deluge of death.
Attempting to slow the carnage, city leaders essentially closed down Philadelphia. On October 3, officials shuttered most public spaces – including schools, churches, theaters and pool halls. But the calamity was relentless. Understaffed hospitals were crippled. Morgues and undertakers could not keep pace with demand. Grieving families had to bury their own dead. Casket prices skyrocketed. The phrase “bodies stacked like cordwood†became a common refrain. And news reports and rumors soon spread that the Germans –the “Huns†– had unleashed the epidemic.
A political appointee, Krusen publicly denied that influenza was a threat, saying with assurance that the few military deaths were “old-fashioned influenza or grip.†He promised a campaign against coughing, spitting and sneezing, well aware that two days before the scheduled parade, the nation’s monthly draft call-up had been cancelled because army camps, including nearby Camp Dix in New Jersey and Camp Meade in Maryland, were overwhelmed by a conflagration of virulent influenza. Philadelphia’s parade poured gasoline on the flames.
Krusen’s decision to let the parade go on was based on two fears. He believed that a quarantine might cause a general panic. In fact, when city officials did close down public gatherings, the skeptical Philadelphia Inquirer chided the decision. “Talk of cheerful things instead of disease,†urged the Inquirer on October 5. “The authorities seem to be going daft. What are they trying to do, scare everybody to death?â€
And, like many local officials, Krusen was under extreme pressure to meet bond quotas, which were considered a gauge of patriotism. Caught between the demands of federal officials and the public welfare, he picked wrong.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/philadelphia-threw-wwi-parade-gave-thousands-onlookers-flu-180970372/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/philadelphia-threw-wwi-parade-gave-thousands-onlookers-flu-180970372/)
-
The US has an increasingly "suburbanized population."
People hold a reasonable expectation for their pursuit of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They form government jurisdictions, to maintain public safety, like clean water, measures to mitigate against the spread of contageous diseases.
Individual and group freedoms (rights) extend only to the boundary where the exercize thereof infringes on another's rights.
Early laws dealt with resources like land, grazing, forestry, hunting, water, navigation, air safety, etc.
If this church has a managing authority, they likely purchase liability insurance. That authority should direct the pastor, because his action is criminally negligent. In fact the congregation, should want the guy removed. He could wipe out their financial resources.
Analogy: Owner/manager of public space has knowledge of mold damage.
Said owner takes no steps to remediate said potentially harmful condition. Commercial or residential property. Like apartment dwellers.
Nothing about infringing on religious practice. It is verything about reasonable expectations in modern society.
That is EXACTLY what it is. I may be wrong,but I do not believe that any of the things you mentioned are specifically included in the Bill of Rights,but "Freedom of (and FROM,is implied) Religion" is.
If any of the bad things you mentioned come into play from church members attending meetings,there is nothing to prevent them from filing law suits.
-
I haven't seen anyone say that. And I'm absolutely certain that no one here believes that.
@musiclady
I am NOT trying to be a wise ass,but if they don't believe it,why are they defending it?
Here *I* am defending religious freedom,and here YOU are,saying it is ok for the government to arbitrarily limit it.
Does anyone else hear the theme music from "The Twilight Zone" playing in the background?
-
How Churches of Christ responded when the 1918 ‘Spanish flu’ killed millions
https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/ (https://christianchronicle.org/how-churches-of-christ-responded-when-the-1918-spanish-flu-killed-millions/)
@Neverdul
Please correct me if I am wrong,but wasn't it THEIR CHOICE to do that?
-
@musiclady
I am NOT trying to be a wise ass,but if they don't believe it,why are they defending it?
Here *I* am defending religious freedom,and here YOU are,saying it is ok for the government to arbitrarily limit it.
Does anyone else hear the theme music from "The Twilight Zone" playing in the background?
Except that I am NOT saying it is OK for the government to arbitrarily limit religious freedom.
Not even close.
-
The interesting thing about Philadelphia is that many doctors warned the public health commissioner (Wilmer Krusen) to cancel the Liberty Loan Parade knowing that it would be the cause of a lot more influenza cases and deaths, which of course it did. The pressure to go ahead with the parade that saw some 200,000 people crowd the parade route was both political and economic. And when you read the articles I posted up thread and others about the “Spanish Fluâ€, it is apparent that everything old is new again but the lessons of history are a hard pill for somepeople to swallow.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/philadelphia-threw-wwi-parade-gave-thousands-onlookers-flu-180970372/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/philadelphia-threw-wwi-parade-gave-thousands-onlookers-flu-180970372/)
It's also noteworthy that the churches who closed in 1918 also reopened when the danger was over.
The thousands upon thousands of churches that are cancelling in person services and replacing them with online services (which in 1918 was clearly not an option), will reopen after the crisis has passed, stronger and more Godly than before...... strengthened by the fact that they honored God by being responsible citizens, and glorified Him with their loving responses to a very real health crisis.
Thanks again, @Neverdul for the historic perspective on what is not a crisis for the Church, but a time of strengthening and recentering on God's purpose for Christians.
-
Read a story today about another pastor who was arrested in Louisiana. His reason for still holding services? He has to because he can't lay his hands on his congregation otherwise. Uh....that's the whole idea of social distancing -- so you aren't touching people and maybe passing the virus on to them. I wonder how these gentlemen would feel if by continuing their gatherings, one or more of their flock became ill with the virus and died.
I don't know about other faiths, but I was raised Catholic and back then we were taught that God is everywhere. So what's the difference if you worship Him in a church building or at home? And I happen to believe that God inspired man to create the technology that allows us to stay at home and hear/see His representatives on earth when we can't actually go to a designated building to worship Him. If He was so against online streaming services, I figure He would not have allowed the technology to be created that beams these services into our homes.
So for crying out loud, pastors, how about being good stewards of your flocks as you are supposed to be and protect them from harm by allowing them to worship at home?
-
I wonder how these gentlemen would feel if by continuing their gatherings, one or more of their flock became ill with the virus and died.
@Applewood
Hit wuz Gawds Will!
-
@Applewood
Hit wuz Gawds Will!
@sneakypete
Yes, I expect these fellas would not take responsibility. I'm gonna guess these men are more concerned that their "revenue stream" will dry up if they don't have parishioners physically present to drop gobs of money into the collection plate every week.
-
@Neverdul
Please correct me if I am wrong,but wasn't it THEIR CHOICE to do that?
@sneakypete
From the article from Christian Chronical, many churches (and I am presuming these were mainly Church Of Christ) closed voluntarily based on the strong “recommendations†of public health officials. However further down in the article:
“M.C. Kurfees, the minister of the Campbell Street Church of Christ in Louisville, Ky., sent a letter to his members announcing the congregation’s compliance with the Kentucky State Board of Health. “It behooves us,†he wrote, “to cheerfully submit to this order and to exert all our energies in an earnest and sympathetic effort to cooperate with the benevolent purpose of our government to check the deplorable disease.â€
And
“Nevertheless, some experienced this as government interference. They resented the government’s orders to shut their doors on Sunday mornings. “We must obey God rather than man,†a few argued. J. W. Dunn of Paris, Texas, for example, applauded “one of our faithful ones†who “approached the mayor and explained to him our convictions of duty on Lord’s-day services.†The mayor consented but only if a few gathered; no large meetings were permitted. At the same time, Dunn noted, “Paris has had a heavy toll.â€
“Other ministers accepted the quarantines and restrictions without complaint because they recognized one could obey both God and the government. E. C. Fuqua of Fort Collins, Colo., keenly felt the obligation to meet weekly on the Lord’s Day. “Carefully observing [government] restrictions, we feel free to meet a few brethren in a private home and worship according to the New Testament teaching.†In this way, “the assembly thus formed is not unlawful, and the worship rendered is lawful to God,†which demonstrates “loyalty to both.â€
The other articles I posted make it clear that local officials in many cities and even in smaller towns ordered all public gatherings including churches closed for a period of time or greatly limited the number of congregants allowed.
But the main point of posting these articles is to show that the shutdown of public gatherings with COVID-19 is nothing new as many of the same “social distancing†and attempts to slow or stop the spread were used 100 years ago for the “Spanish†Flu, including closing churches.
-
@sneakypete
Yes, I expect these fellas would not take responsibility. I'm gonna guess these men are more concerned that their "revenue stream" will dry up if they don't have parishioners physically present to drop gobs of money into the collection plate every week.
@Applewood
I have no doubt a certain percentage truly believe it themselves. None of whom are likely to have tv shows,though.
-
Really, more than one post here suggest the current situation trumps (no pun intended) the freedom of assembly, an enumerated right.
[...]
So my statement stands, and the part that says that others in power, in times of crisis, will try to suspend other parts of other amendments, that they find "troublesome".
Yeah. And you're right. :beer: