Christian churches say they’re being discriminated against because gatherings in Kansas are limited to 10 people.
A judge said they were right.
When Kansas becomes the next hot spot for cases and deaths, I hope the church parishioners put the blame where it properly lies.
On each other? Everyone has a choice to make, nobody is forcing them into church.
Yes, Rose, on each other.
I’d go further, though, and say that, should what I expect will occur does occur _ that anyone who catches the virus from these people sue that individual and their church for every last dime.
Good luck with that, they’ll never make it through he courthouse door.
What they are doing is legal and protected under the 1st Amendment.
yeah on china
If church goers defy common sense and become infected, they weren’t being Christians. Love dominates a Christian’s life. It’s love for The Lord and love for your fellow man. It’s that love that doesn’t want anyone to be infected and you must consider yourself, infected. That’s the motivation not to attend a service within six feet of your fellow parishioners.
Its a sacrifice one has to make in order to say hello to Jesus.
And if a few get sick, what’s the big deal? They’ll have their $1200 stimulus to help pay medical bills. And if a few die? Meh. Small price to pay. At least they got to express their 1st amendment rights.
What would Jesus say about this matter?
5 Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and saith unto him, If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and, On their hands they shall bear thee up,
Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
In other words, if common sense says…don’t do it…don’t do it and that is The Lord’s Will.
In this day and age of PayPal and Venmo (for the money aspect of it) and in this age of Internet video services, I do not see why churches insist on keeping on doing this. It’s not like their doors will be shut forever, and no one is being prevented from worshipping.
So stupid…
Mark it…on this day…I find myself agreeing with JJ. 
The only thing we would have to figure out is to make special dispensation for anyone who might not have the Internet. Clever orgs could figure that out.
Carry on…
Shouldn’t the safety of the many outweigh the religious fervor of the few?
If the state announces no groups over 10 to meet, not because they give a crap about what the people are saying but beecause they’re trying to keep them from dying of some pandemic, shouldn’t that have some leeway on the first amendment - which was put in place for freedom of speech, not for freedom to give potentially deadly diseases to others?
It would be an interesting exercise to track those who attend those church services to see when and how many are infected with the coronavirus.
To clarify what happened here, (at least according to this link), it was the state legislature, not a court, that revoked the ban on gatherings of 10-or-more.
It was done at the behest of “churches” (though it doesn’t say how many pushed for this.)
The number of churches that are defying these directives are minimal. There is an undercurrent of media effort to cast “churches” as out of control in this matter, elevating those rare examples to appear mainstream.
There is this nugget of the truth buried in the article:
“But while most churches had canceled Easter services or moved them online voluntarily, Kelly’s order to keep church attendance to 10 or less (not including choirs, ministers, etc.) rankled Kansas’ Republican leaders.”
In fact, all across the country, most church leaders of all stripes are calling on their renegade brethren to come to their senses.
Nonetheless, the rare cases are emphasized in the news. Expect media outlets to scour Kansas looking for churches that hold on-site Easter services so that fingers can be pointed at “churches”.
And idiot lawmakers are facilitating them. Also from this article:
“I’ve received an absolute outpouring of concerns from people of faith. And it’s not because they were planning on attending a worship service for Easter,” Senate President Susan Wagle said during the panel’s conference call, invoking religious liberties. “They think it’s totally inappropriate for the governor to tell them that they cannot worship in a way and in the manner that they choose to on Sunday.”
I do not take at face value Wagle’s claim of “outpouring”.
The legislative action is irresponsible.
And churches that hold in-person services are even more so.
The 1st Amendment has traditionally been limited in those instances where people’s safety is concerned. Freedom of speech does not extend to expressing things likely to cause direct harm to others. These short-term limits on Assembly on on firm Constitutional grounds.
Where does it properly lie?
I can agree with this and hope others will too.
