Trump

[ReijiTabibito]

The SCOTUS will likely be the same. They're too busy making religiously crazy rulings like exempting places of worship from coronavirus regulations.

The SCOTUS ruling this past week does not exempt churches, synagogues, and mosques from following rules set out WRT COVID-19 permanently, only while the matter is under appeal.  And even if it did, do you not trust your own fellow citizens to make good decisions about whether or not attending religious services is a good idea?  The information we have on state-based mask mandates suggests that the mandates have largely been superfluous because people had already been doing the things laid out in the mandates before the mandates existed.


Furthermore, the SCOTUS ruling says that you can't have one standard for businesses and then a different standard for churches, because that is a violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.  Data provided by the state of NY has not proven that houses of worship are a major vector for COVID transmission, not more than any secular business.  It's also worth pointing out that Cuomo reclassified what color zone churches were (they were previously red or orange) once the Court agreed to take up the request for injunctive relief (to yellow).  Bit hard to look at that and not find it suspicious.

[Haibane]

do you not trust your own fellow citizens to make good decisions about whether or not attending religious services is a good idea?

No. Religious meetings in other nations have been proven as spreader events (Iraq, Iran, S Korea). There are religious leaders saying that their god will protect their worshippers from the satanic virus. Places of religious gathering really should be treated differently from secular businesses in this regard due to the very different ideology behind their usage and purpose and because religious adherents may more readily do what their leaders say rather than what scientists or politicians say.

[Kitteredge]

The SCOTUS ruling this past week does not exempt churches, synagogues, and mosques from following rules set out WRT COVID-19 permanently, only while the matter is under appeal.  And even if it did, do you not trust your own fellow citizens to make good decisions about whether or not attending religious services is a good idea?  The information we have on state-based mask mandates suggests that the mandates have largely been superfluous because people had already been doing the things laid out in the mandates before the mandates existed.


Furthermore, the SCOTUS ruling says that you can't have one standard for businesses and then a different standard for churches, because that is a violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.  Data provided by the state of NY has not proven that houses of worship are a major vector for COVID transmission, not more than any secular business.  It's also worth pointing out that Cuomo reclassified what color zone churches were (they were previously red or orange) once the Court agreed to take up the request for injunctive relief (to yellow).  Bit hard to look at that and not find it suspicious.

Are you for real?

[TheVillain]

I live in Appalachia dude, the Data very clearly shows that religious services are super-spreader events.

[ReijiTabibito]

No. Religious meetings in other nations have been proven as spreader events (Iraq, Iran, S Korea). There are religious leaders saying that their god will protect their worshippers from the satanic virus. Places of religious gathering really should be treated differently from secular businesses in this regard due to the very different ideology behind their usage and purpose and because religious adherents may more readily do what their leaders say rather than what scientists or politicians say.

Those are other nations.  I wouldn't pretend for a second that two of those three nations are on the equivalent level of the US in terms of medical and civil infrastructure.  South Korea I'm willing to entertain, but you have to explain to me, first, how you can compare a country with a population density of 36 people per square kilometer to a country with a population density of 527 people per square kilometer (both according to the World Bank).  That is not an insignificant difference, especially when we know that virus transmission rates increase along with population density.

So people should be prohibited from going to church because they may choose to listen to someone other than the experts?  (And politicians are not experts, unless that politician somehow happens to have an MD appended next to his name.)

I live in Appalachia dude, the Data very clearly shows that religious services are super-spreader events.

Please show me your data.

[TheVillain]

https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19

Take a look, this is just Kentucky. I live in a part of the country where its pretty much all church services driving the spread at this point save the occassional little league game or Trump rally.

[Regina Minx]

Please show me your data.

How about a transmission rate of 38% at an Arkansas church service.

[Dhi]

The blinders you have on to support these beliefs are astonishing, Reiji. You're looking purely at the population density of SK to support a point, but the actual infection numbers in SK tell a wildly different story, and everyone knows it.

[ReijiTabibito]

https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19

Take a look, this is just Kentucky. I live in a part of the country where its pretty much all church services driving the spread at this point save the occassional little league game or Trump rally.

I'll do that, though given the layout of this particular website, I would appreciate some pointers as to where I should be looking for the data.  I thought I had it when I ran across the 'Places of Worship' link, though that just turned out to be the state's guidelines, not any math.  (You'd swear that government websites are designed to be as frustratingly annoying to navigate as possible.)

How about a transmission rate of 38% at an Arkansas church service.

Two points on this.  One.  This is a single church; the Hartford Institute for Religious Research indicates that the US has 300,000 churches.  That is not even a fraction of a percent.  That is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent.  With a sample size that large, you are bound to get at least one or two places that screw up in a massive way.  You can pick out a similar percentage of grocery stores, restaurants, non-religious places, and probably find a similar incidence of transmission rate.

Two.  This case happened back in March - eight months ago, almost nine now.  There was a lot less we knew about the virus then than what we know about it now.  The dates highlighted in the CDC report for initial contraction of COVID are March 6-8th.  I live in New England, where we've got some of the toughest restrictions due to the virus.  The first major restrictions in NY didn't go into effect until March 12th.  This could have happened there, given that.  This could have happened anywhere in the US, given the time we're talking about.   

It's also worth pointing out from the report that the day after the index cases discovered they had symptoms, they closed the church.  March the 8th was a Sunday, and possibly the day that the index cases got COVID.  No other services were had after that Sunday, so whoever from that church was infected either got infected in the same timeframe as the index cases, or during the March 11th event noted in the report.

The blinders you have on to support these beliefs are astonishing, Reiji. You're looking purely at the population density of SK to support a point, but the actual infection numbers in SK tell a wildly different story, and everyone knows it.

I'm not blind - if I were, I wouldn't be willing to ask people for data and then review it myself; I would just say that none of you know what you're talking about and you're all being lied to.  Show me the infection data in Korea that tells this different story.

[Regina Minx]

The difference being that 1) there is intense social pressure to not restrict churches despite 2) very good reasons for doing so. Social gatherings at indoor spaces are exactly how this virus is spreading, and while I understand SCOTUS' reasoning that the discrimination in New York was unconstitutional, to me that only spells out the need to impose the same restrictions on churches as on other 'essential' businesses (despite the fact that churches are not fucking essential in my opinion).

[Dhi]

You cannot be serious.

By your own numbers, SK population density is 527 per sq km. To date there are 33,375 reported Covid cases.

US population density is 36 per sq km and has passed 13,000,000 cases in roughly the same time frame.

This is the extent to which I'm willing to engage.

[clonkertink]

I'm not blind - if I were, I wouldn't be willing to ask people for data and then review it myself; I would just say that none of you know what you're talking about and you're all being lied to.  Show me the infection data in Korea that tells this different story.

I'm sorry, which "lies" are being told here? You have demanded a great deal of data, and yet you have conveniently found a reason to disregard each piece of evidence, even if taken together they show a trend.

So people should be prohibited from going to church because they may choose to listen to someone other than the experts?  (And politicians are not experts, unless that politician somehow happens to have an MD appended next to his name.)

No. People should be prohibited from in-person church services in order to prevent transmission of the virus. We know three things that help prevent the transmission of the disease: 1) wearing a mask, 2) avoiding large gatherings, and 3) being outdoors. Any large gathering indoors presents a significant risk for transmitting COVID-19. If those churchgoers are not wearing a mask, that risk increases further.

Unless you have any evidence that churches can conduct in-person gatherings in a way that is safe for worshippers, your argument completely falls apart before it gets off the ground.

[Haibane]

So people should be prohibited from going to church because they may choose to listen to someone other than the experts?

Church goers do listen to people other than experts! They follow their church leaders, its how churches are formed and grow. If church-goers listened to scientists and secular experts we wouldn't have organised religions.

People should be prohibited from all social gatherings. All of them. People are dying planet-wide in their hundreds of thousands. It is not okay for anyone to get near anyone else unless absolutely necessary.

Density of population isn't the issue because religious gatherings tend to place people in extremely close proximity for sufficient length of time for the virus to be transmitted. They also tend to encourage indirect physical contact by way of handling bibles or other books such as hymn books, kissing icons and other artefacts in some religions and sharing goblets of wine in others. And singing. The same close contact of many people happens at sporting events and political rallies which is why people are not doing those things (unless they are stupid). These are quite different conditions to, for example, an office.

[Oniya]

BTW, as regards the etymology of the word "trump" and its derivatives these have been in the English language for centuries; its probably that his family name comes from one of these words or meanings, not that these meanings and words stem from his name. I imagine we will see some new uses of "trump" in the future but I really doubt they are in the OED already in reference to 45.

Oh, I'm sure that they aren't referring to 45.  It's just one of those wildly appropriate names, like Michael Ball or Doug Bowser (president of Nintendo of America).

[clonkertink]

Church goers do listen to people other than experts! They follow their church leaders, its how churches are formed and grow. If church-goers listened to scientists and secular experts we wouldn't have organised religions.

This is going a bit too far. Many many people of faith do take this pandemic seriously, and listen to expert advice on the proper safety precautions. Many churches have gone digital, streaming sermons, or hosting services via Zoom.

Let's be mindful that there are religious people on E, and that they do not come to this thread expecting to have their beliefs attacked.

[ReijiTabibito]

I'm sorry, which "lies" are being told here? You have demanded a great deal of data, and yet you have conveniently found a reason to disregard each piece of evidence, even if taken together they show a trend.

The point of that statement was not about whether or not the truth is being told; the point of that statement is that if I was being willingly blind, I would not be asking for evidence.

Is it merely about the convenience for me if I find a reason to disregard evidence, or is it because there is a reason to disregard to begin with?

No. People should be prohibited from in-person church services in order to prevent transmission of the virus. We know three things that help prevent the transmission of the disease: 1) wearing a mask, 2) avoiding large gatherings, and 3) being outdoors. Any large gathering indoors presents a significant risk for transmitting COVID-19. If those churchgoers are not wearing a mask, that risk increases further.

Unless you have any evidence that churches can conduct in-person gatherings in a way that is safe for worshippers, your argument completely falls apart before it gets off the ground.

Show me the rate at which churchgoers are wearing/not wearing masks.

And brilliant.  Just brilliant.  I'm asking for evidence that going to church is dangerous for those who choose to go, I may emphasize, and you're asking for evidence of the contrary, that it is not dangerous for them to go.  We're not even agreeing on which evidence we need to look at to make a determination.  Ships passing in the night.

Church goers do listen to people other than experts! They follow their church leaders, its how churches are formed and grow. If church-goers listened to scientists and secular experts we wouldn't have organised religions.

People should be prohibited from all social gatherings. All of them. People are dying planet-wide in their hundreds of thousands. It is not okay for anyone to get near anyone else unless absolutely necessary.

Density of population isn't the issue because religious gatherings tend to place people in extremely close proximity for sufficient length of time for the virus to be transmitted. They also tend to encourage indirect physical contact by way of handling bibles or other books such as hymn books, kissing icons and other artefacts in some religions and sharing goblets of wine in others. And singing. The same close contact of many people happens at sporting events and political rallies which is why people are not doing those things (unless they are stupid). These are quite different conditions to, for example, an office.

Churchgoers being willing to listen to people other than experts does not preclude them from listening to said experts.  Saying that that is the case is not so different from the charge that was made against JFK in the 60s that because he was a Catholic, he would listen to the Pope over the people, prioritize Vatican utterances over the Constitution.  But ultimately, people have to decide for themselves how to best go about living their life with what they know about the virus.  I'm of the mind that the phrase 'existential threat' gets used more than is judicious, but if we say that people are incapable of good decision making, for whatever reason, then that is a threat to the idea of self-governance.

And who decides 'absolutely necessary'?  And how is it decided?  I'm not in disagreement that people should wear masks, cut back on social gatherings, should exercise some rational fucking judgment and not be total morons.  But at the end of the day, we can't live in fear of the virus.  This is one-half of my beef with the 'if it just saves one life'...no.  We live, every day, in threat of harm and death.  Do I worry about the virus?  Of course I do.  But I also worry about getting into an auto wreck when I drive more than a mile from my house.  I worry about accidentally putting my foot down wrong on a step, and eating the stairway in the face, or worse, falling down the stairs and running the risk of a broken limb.  I worry about electrical shorts from the testing equipment in my lab causing a fire or explosion.  Life has endless ways with which to kill or you hurt you.  But we go on anyways, accepting the risks of those, because the alternative is worse.  (If you ask me.) 

At the end of the day, we all die.  That is inevitable.  That is not to say that it is 'fine' for people to die; we recognize that death is bad.  But the quantity of years we live does not beat the quality of life we lead.  I refuse to live in fear over a virus that, and it's not often that I agree with him, Bill deBlasio perfectly encapsulated by saying that if you were under the age of 50, and healthy, that you could go about living your life.

[Deamonbane]

At the end of the day, we all die.  That is inevitable.

Sure, we all die. But when your actions are causing the spread of a virus that is causing another person to die, that's when you need to hold off and start having this little thing we humans call empathy.

It's been thoroughly proven that people under the age of 50 are dying or suffering the side effects that result from being infected with covid, so stop spreading that particular nugget of misinformation.

[clonkertink]

Show me the rate at which churchgoers are wearing/not wearing masks.

Mask wearing, in this case, is secondary to the large group gathering. Masks reduce the risk, but any large gathering is presents a significant risk of spreading COVID-19.

And brilliant.  Just brilliant.  I'm asking for evidence that going to church is dangerous for those who choose to go, I may emphasize, and you're asking for evidence of the contrary, that it is not dangerous for them to go.  We're not even agreeing on which evidence we need to look at to make a determination.  Ships passing in the night.

Okay, you seem to think my argument is actually specific to churches. Let me give you the syllogism:

Any large indoor gathering of people presents a significant risk of spreading COVID.
A church service is a large indoor gathering of people.
Therefore, church services present a significant risk of spreading COVID.

Which of these premises is incorrect?

[ReijiTabibito]

Any large indoor gathering of people presents a significant risk of spreading COVID.
A church service is a large indoor gathering of people.
Therefore, church services present a significant risk of spreading COVID.

Which of these premises is incorrect?

None of them.  Your logic is not unsound.  (Though I would ask you what your definition of 'large gathering' is for clarification.)  I'm wondering why there should be a different treatment for church services than there are for other similar events.  My answer is that there shouldn't be.

[clonkertink]

None of them.  Your logic is not unsound.  (Though I would ask you what your definition of 'large gathering' is for clarification.)  I'm wondering why there should be a different treatment for church services than there are for other similar events.  My answer is that there shouldn't be.

And here we agree. Religious gatherings should be subject to the same restrictions as everywhere else. Therefore, restaurants, schools, and other areas open to the public must abide by restrictions, so too must church gatherings. The question then becomes: how many people should be allowed in a chapel?

Certainly, I would disagree with my province's initial guidelines, allowing "Faith Based Gatherings of 100 people, or 1/4 capacity. Whichever is larger." That's far too many people in an enclosed area. Realistically, it should be based off of how many people the church can hold while properly accommodating six foot social distancing. But if your church has 100 members who want to attend, but guidelines allow for at most 20, that's 80 people who are upset about the government keeping them from going to church.

[ReijiTabibito]

The question over capacity, I find, is not a one size fits all solution.  To me, how many people should be allowed in a building is highly dependent on the architecture of the building.  One of the most well known megachurches in the US is the Mars Hill Church, located in MI.  Mars Hill is located in, as I understand it, what used to be a mall.  I would imagine, then, that there are several different large rooms that used to hold stores there; install large TV screens and have a good enough sound system and you can pretty much use the entire structure to hold a service, with the exception of the hallways.

Contrast that with a Catholic church where it's a single rectangular building.  (Granted, a Catholic church the size of a mall is not exactly likely to exist.)  Even if both structures can hold the same amount of people via capacity, the layout of them varies and thus should be treated differently.  That's the major reason why I'm against fixed-person guidelines, unless you happen to be establishing those guidelines for buildings of similar design.  (EG, 'all buildings that are of dimensions X to X-2 feet long and Y to Y-2 feet wide' or something similar.)

I understand that going around to every structure is bound to take way too much time, though.  But that's why I think they should establish guidelines like the 'six feet apart' rule, and then leave the matter to the people running the building.  No one wants to get COVID, even if it's not among our more super-threatening diseases.

[TheGlyphstone]

Church goers do listen to people other than experts! They follow their church leaders, its how churches are formed and grow. If church-goers listened to scientists and secular experts we wouldn't have organised religions.

While it's mildly off-topic, whenever this comes up I do like to try and point out that the whole 'science vs. religion' thing is a relatively recent addition to both, within the last century or so. For most of human civilization the church was also the bastion of education and learning. Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Newton (sort of)...a vast number of famous historical scientists were also devoutly religious people. So while your point is relevant today, it's also honestly quite arguable to say that without organized religion, we wouldn't have gotten those scientists.

[Fox Lokison]

No one wants to get COVID, even if it's not among our more super-threatening diseases.

I can heartily say that plenty of people do not believe COVID is even real, and there are religious leaders who have said this, have said it's cured by prayer and more religion, and that it's a man-made virus released to attack America. Which puts a damper on the idea that they might not want to get it. They gotta believe in it, the danger, and the threat of close gatherings first, before that sinks it. Lots of steps.

Don't get me wrong, my local churches, mosques, temples, etc, are all being very good for the most part and their leaders are caring for their people and protecting them from COVID, but religion in America is a huge unifier. People unite under these leaders, and their words carry far, as do their delusions. They don't believe it's real, or they believe prayer and Jesus will defeat it.

Religions aren't the only ones whose leaders are making such big claims and whose words reach this far... but they ARE the ones who are leaders in systems that encourage people to come to close-knit gatherings one (or several) times a week, and even require it as part of the faith. A Fox News anchor or political pundit can talk you into going to the store maskless or going to that Trump rally, but he's not gonna talk nearly as many people into those tightly-knit, close contact situations weekly as a religious figure is.

That does warrant some special attention. I'm loathe to encourage the government to intervene in churches - separation of church and state goes both ways - but that's one of those situations where it seems like there's little else to do. If people would just deal with a mask and social distancing, we wouldn't have these issues, but alas, some people think they're experts and they know The Real Truth and that's how we get plagues spreading like wildfire.

While it's mildly off-topic, whenever this comes up I do like to try and point out that the whole 'science vs. religion' thing is a relatively recent addition to both, within the last century or so. For most of human civilization the church was also the bastion of education and learning. Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Newton (sort of)...a vast number of famous historical scientists were also devoutly religious people. So while your point is relevant today, it's also honestly quite arguable to say that without organized religion, we wouldn't have gotten those scientists.

Religious institutions often were aligned with state institutions, and held a lot of power and wealth, yeah. Islam springs to mind, with their marriage of science and faith, but the Catholic Church also funds science on a broad scale, even to this day. In fact, they encourage you to think critically and embrace science. What I learned, growing up Catholic, was that science was not a threat. Science was a friend. Life was not simplistic and the Bible was simply part of the picture. We are further along than our ancestors and it's logical our picture of God and creation would change with it. For example, the Big Bang fits in well with the Catholic faith... because we don't know what came before or what fully caused it. That fits in quite well with scripture and belief in God. It's the people who stick rigidly to the past that run into issues, not religions as a whole.

Belief in a God or higher being is actually what spurred many discoveries on. The desire to understand the world that the Creator had given us, and to "unwrap" his gifts for us. To learn more about us, about Him, about our origins. Fundamentalists may not agree, but not all religious people are fundamentalists.

Church goers do listen to people other than experts! They follow their church leaders, its how churches are formed and grow. If church-goers listened to scientists and secular experts we wouldn't have organised religions.

TBH that's a subject I could thread on all day, but as Glyph said, it's the other way around. If we didn't have religious figures with the power and influence and desire to learn that they had, science would not have advanced quite so far. I suggest looking into Islam's history with scientific discoveries, specifically medicine and mathematics. It's quite fascinating. The refusal to accept new information is not unique to religions, and it's a minority of the members. I think it's an erroneous statement to suggest we wouldn't have organized religions if we listened to science. My faith, for example, calls for us to both accept science and our own beliefs, as do the faiths of most of the people in my life. Which is a wide variety of beliefs from animism to Satanism to Buddhism to the Abrahamic faiths to indigenous religions to... well you get the point. All our religions call on us to accept or listen to science.

Religion is a crucial part to many lives, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest that it's somehow anti-scientific and that the members don't listen. There's a difference between someone with an agenda standing on a pulpit and using that to push their own ideas and their own warped beliefs, and religion as a whole. Any person can use any position of power to hurt people and regress. Take a look at the latest round of leaders going through the world.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wouldn’t this conversation be more appropriate in the COVID thread?

[Fox Lokison]

Yeah, probably, my bad