I’m not arguing what the established legal thinking believes what is “legal” only what it should be.
Unfortunately, the world is not full of Unicorns.
Wait.....
I’m not arguing what the established legal thinking believes what is “legal” only what it should be.
As fast as this thread goes, we’re probably several pages past this, and probably several people have replied to this. But Imma say it anyway. This line of reasoning isn’t well thought out. I wish people would just drop it, because it’s kinda silly. No one’s calling it the “asian people virus”. Or even the Chinese people virus. That would be closer to something you might call racist, and even then it depends on what they’re saying. Calling it the Wuhan virus isn’t saying anything about race. Nothing. Race is not reasonably even reasonably inferred. So why bother inferring it when it’s not implied? I’ll cite two reasons:Calling it "the wuhan virus" accomplishes at least two negative things:
- It makes the conversation less precise.
- It disparages a group of victims as though Covid-19 was their fault.
I can't come up with any positive.
Yeah, it's a small thing. But why try to be abrasive about stuff like this? Conservatives are regularly labeled as racists; why give more ammo to the opposition for nothing gained?
Sadly, the people that are cheering this on are so afraid of getting sick they don’t care.
I’m not arguing what the established legal thinking believes what is “legal” only what it should be.
I continue to believe that this lack of freedom (self-imposed, for the most part) will remind people of how important freedom is (along with liberty). Once we get through this, people will look for all sorts of reasons to exercise their freedoms.
And I also think they will look suspiciously at any efforts to put more teeth in the pre-existing public health and safety laws. The existing laws seem to be sufficient, so I'm not sure what the impetus would be to take on more power.
We'll see, but I think those efforts would be resisted.
What do all men with power want? More power.
BahahahahahahahahahaUnfortunately, the world is not full of Unicorns.
Wait.....
[/IMG]
I'm about as far from an atheist as one can be....and I agree that it is both legal and prudent for churches not to gather at this time.
It is. Cancel gatherings and lead the flock or encourage gatherings and be arrested.
I thought the 19 referred to year of discovery. If so it could be subject to a 2000 in 2100.
I wholeheartedly agree with the prudence; I don't agree with the legality - in particular, if regularly meeting together is part of religious adherence is a sincerely held religious belief, then the state prohibiting said regular meeting together compels a violation of conscience for the one who sincerely holds such a religious belief.
Even Federal RFRA has constrained less egregious state action - on the basis that far less-mainstream religious beliefs must be accommodated - than prohibiting religious gatherings.
I don’t have any “safe zones” I will say this though that my previous post that started this was pretty much a personal shot that I admit was out of line. I should not have went there and sidetracked the discussion which was certainly relevant. For that I apologize to R45.
You must be pretty new to the internet to think that might happen.
And that's why you have your own special safe zone called the "religious discussion" thread. Perhaps you need to stay inside the chalk circle.
Trump just announced a halt to funding the WHO
Wow!
Well, at least you didn't take the gloves off and say pentagram, but -10 religious tolerence points
Who did Trump halt funding to?