The lockdown, Evangelicals and the afterlife … a response to Steven Pinker
By: Dennis Prager
This article is right on regarding the topic it covers. Atheism is unsophisticated arrogance. People wanting to restart the economy are good people. There is an afterlife.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker tweeted last week:
"Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion, since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer, safer, and happier. Exhibit A: What's really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening? Evangelicals."
Before responding to Pinker's remarkably ignorant tweet, I want to praise him. He is one of the few professors in America to call out the left's destruction of our universities. Most human beings lack courage, but no group is more cowardly than academics. This has been true for 100 years. From the German universities to today, professors have almost never taken a position that required courage. Indeed, one might say that when you send your child to college, your child is taught to be a coward by the cowardly.
Two years ago, Pinker wrote:
"Universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance, with non-leftist speakers drowned out by jeering mobs, professors subjected to Stalinesque investigations for unorthodox opinions, risible guidelines on 'microaggressions' [such as saying 'I believe the most qualified person should get the job'], students mobbing and cursing a professor who invited them to discuss Halloween costumes, and much else. These incidents have drawn worldwide ridicule, and damage the credibility of university scientists and scholars when they weigh on critical matters, such as climate change."
It takes courage for a professor to write that our universities are "laughing stocks of intolerance," that they engage in "Stalinesque investigations" and draw "worldwide ridicule."
Having praised Pinker, let me now respond to his tweet.
First, "Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion ... "
I am not a Christian, evangelical or otherwise. I am a religious Jew who has written and lectured extensively on the afterlife. My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: "There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife."
So, belief in an afterlife is no more a "delusion" than belief in God. But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a "delusion." I was disappointed in Pinker, who I respect for his courageous comments and with whom I have dialogued on my radio show. His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism.
In fact, I would argue that it is atheism that is a "malignant delusion."
Regarding the delusion part, I asked one of America's leading thinkers of the last half-century, the late Charles Krauthammer, a secular agnostic, what he thought of atheism. To my surprise, he responded:
"I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments. Atheism demands nothing; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization, the civilization that gave the world democracy, liberty, women's equality and an end to slavery.
In fact, evangelical Christians are the greatest defenders of Western civilization, while Pinker's atheist colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere are the most active opponents of Western civilization. How does Pinker explain that? Which exactly is the "malignant delusion"?
Finally, evangelical Christians and other religious opponents of the continuing lockdown do not oppose continuation of the irrational, fear-driven, life-destroying lockdown -- projected to result in more deaths worldwide and even in parts of America than the coronavirus itself -- because of our belief in the afterlife. This is both stupid and a smear. It shows how even a Steven Pinker can be rendered foolish by atheism.
No one who actually knows evangelicals believes they oppose continuation of the lockdown because they value life less than secular proponents of continuing this lockdown.
Do evangelicals love their children and grandchildren less than atheists? Do evangelicals not do everything possible to save lives? There are evangelical hospitals and doctors serving in the poorest countries in the world. Where are the atheist hospitals?
Evangelicals oppose the continuing of the lockdown because they, more than any other large community in America, continue to believe in freedom. Without the evangelical community, we will no longer have liberty. From before the birth of America, liberty has been the cornerstone belief because it was a cornerstone Christian value. The founders engraved a liberty-affirming verse from the Bible (Leviticus 25:10) in the Liberty Bell. At the same time, from Lenin to Soros and today's Democratic Party, liberty has never been a left-wing value.
To Pinker and his colleagues, Patrick Henry's famous plea, "Give me liberty, or give me death," the foundational principle of our republic, must sound truly foolish. It must have been the product of a malignant delusion.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
No one who actually knows evangelicals believes they oppose continuation of the lockdown because they value life less than secular proponents of continuing this lockdown.
Do evangelicals love their children and grandchildren less than atheists? Do evangelicals not do everything possible to save lives? There are evangelical hospitals and doctors serving in the poorest countries in the world. Where are the atheist hospitals?
Evangelicals oppose the continuing of the lockdown because they, more than any other large community in America, continue to believe in freedom. Without the evangelical community, we will no longer have liberty. From before the birth of America, liberty has been the cornerstone belief because it was a cornerstone Christian value. The founders engraved a liberty-affirming verse from the Bible (Leviticus 25:10) in the Liberty Bell. At the same time, from Lenin to Soros and today's Democratic Party, liberty has never been a left-wing value.
To Pinker and his colleagues, Patrick Henry's famous plea, "Give me liberty, or give me death," the foundational principle of our republic, must sound truly foolish. It must have been the product of a malignant delusion. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/8577/the-lockdown-evangelicals-and-the-afterlife-a-response-to-steven-pinker
Great article. Voted up!
“Give me liberty or give me death!” “Live free or die.” We choose liberty and to live free or die trying to do so.
Without even checking I can surmise this is Dennis Prager.
The interesting about Prager is that he always poses himself as the voice of authority.
There is NO ONE alive or who has ever lived that knows there is an afterlife. The only way to prove there is an afterlife comes after one is dead.
His idea that an afterlife would be "justice" is meaningless. We don't even know if God cares about being "just".
I'm not saying there is an afterlife and I'm not saying there isnt. It is not knowable, and there are no "experts" on the subject, even though Prager claims to be one.
It wouldn't be an act of faith if we knew the answer.
There would be no point to Christianity if there somehow wasn’t one and Jesus would have died on the cross and been resurrected for nothing.
Does that mean you wouldn't want a definitive answer?
There's not much point to it (or any religion really) now outside of mere belief. But belief does not equal fact.
Of course not. Let us know when you find it.
Why not? It seems knowing for sure would be better than fantasizing.
Who do you believe in? Yourself?
No. I don't believe in any deities. I have no need to. At least I know I exist.
But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a "delusion." I was disappointed in Pinker, who I respect for his courageous comments and with whom I have dialogued on my radio show. His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism.
In fact, I would argue that it is atheism that is a "malignant delusion."
Regarding the delusion part, I asked one of America's leading thinkers of the last half-century, the late Charles Krauthammer, a secular agnostic, what he thought of atheism. To my surprise, he responded:
"I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments. Atheism demands nothing; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization, the civilization that gave the world democracy, liberty, women's equality and an end to slavery.
In fact, evangelical Christians are the greatest defenders of Western civilization, while Pinker's atheist colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere are the most active opponents of Western civilization. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/8577/the-lockdown-evangelicals-and-the-afterlife-a-response-to-steven-pinker#cm1322037
Until there is evidence of such a thing, then any claims to that effect can and should be summarily dismissed.
Opinion is noted.
The first flaw in that argument is declaring atheism a theology. The rest of the argument is equally flawed.
"Pastor Lewis of Cornerstone Baptist Church was in the middle of church services when someone began to bang on the front doors. Outside were 3 police cars, 2 unmarked cars, & a rep from Chicago Mayor Lightfoot’s office demanding services end. Like the KGB"....Nick Short
dailywire.com/news/chicago-police-bang-on-church-doors-to-stop-services-film-everyone-who-arrived
So Vic, are you opposed to law enforcement? Do you feel church goers are immune to any rules they do not like?
What laws can a Governor make?
Do you feel church goers are immune to any rules they do not like ?
I know they are covered under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. If there is a health emergency all places where people congregate may have temporary restrictions placed on them. However, if we permit any entity, even the essential grocery stores an exemption, we run into trouble. Do you understand? A Church can be temporarily closed for health considerations, so long as it is not discriminatory or as the DOJ recently warned the Gov of CA:
“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband wrote in the letter.
Avoiding the question again? Figures.
What a load of crap.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means they are not held separately from anyone else, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN IGNORE ANY RULES OR LAWS THEY DO NOT LIKE.
As usual, you didn't like the answer. Only legislatures make laws.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It's the second part that progressives have trouble with.
This means they are not held separately from anyone else, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN IGNORE ANY RULES OR LAWS THEY DO NOT LIKE.
It means that religious people have rights.
It means just what it says. They cannot prohibit the exercise thereof. Period
SMH
While that is generally true, there are limits to rights and religious exercise is not an excuse to violate secular law. The SCOTUS was clear on that.
Perhaps you should try providing one. An answer cannot be another question.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?
You don't need to go into a church to pray.
We can go back and forth like children. You got the answer. Your governors can't make law. A few of them are responsible for the death of people in nursing homes. Blame it on ideology, if you want.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about it, shall we?
Nope, I go by the Constitution. They have rights!
You don't need to go into a church to pray.
Lol, that one went down with the Titanic, try again.
Does religion require churches?
What would it matter if it did?
And WTF does THAT have to do with government making laws regarding the free expression of it?
What you said and quoted should be the bottom line here. If secular places can be open with social distancing and precautions then they can’t keep religious places closed to the same standard.
Really? Why did God establish a temple and synagogues for his own people of ancient times and the church for now? The Apostles and Paul established churches everywhere they went. Jesus intended for us to study and pray together. The inside of a church is not a street corner. Mathew 18-20 says we do need to come together in his name and it’s not up to you to decide for us what we need.
Closing churches do not effect anyone's ability to practice their religion.
Nonsense.
But secular law can not place an undue burden upon the free exercise of religious belief without a compelling government interest. There is no compelling interest in keeping lower capacities of people in a church than that allowed anywhere else like a grocery store.
The selfishness is so dominant in the arguments presented for opening churches. People need food and other supplies to live, so we have to tolerate the risk of spreading the infection. This risk is not only to the people doing necessary shopping or collecting in churches. Those who get sick will endanger the healthcare workers who care for them. They will risk infecting others. Try to think about someone other than yourself -- it will make understanding the rules in these trying times possible; it's not about you. Collecting in bars or churches are actions you should be willing to forgo to protect your neighbors.
And churches provide a lot of the food and aid people need and can not afford. We are no longer in lock down. We are opening up again. The President said religion of all faiths is essential. The first amendment limits government power over free expression of belief. Government has no compelling state interest to tell religion it has to be discriminated compared to secular groups in the process of reopening. Secularist bigots in government can no longer lock us out of our churches while letting everything else around us opens up. We can use precautions and social distancing in church as well any other group of citizens can do elsewhere. This pandemic has shown the true colors of some on the secular progressive left and what they will do to believers when they seize the power to do so. Never again!
Not for you to decide for us.
That's your first mistake, you all take trump's word for fact.
Do you require your hands to be held when praying?
Can your god not hear you unless you are in a church?
Shall we address Matthew 6:5-6 again?
What exactly do you need a church for, in your religion?
Never claimed to, just pointed out that a church is not essential for practicing your religion..
to some people, the church is very essential and the first amendment is always essential.
so pardon everyone else for ignoring the lefts determinations of what other people "should do.
your opinion on how essential church is? totally irrelevant.
I don't require anything to pray.
I believe God can hear me anywhere.
You may choose to address whatever you wish. There is no "we" here.
I don't need a church. Some people may feel they do. Who are you to tell others how and where to worship?
Not according to the Bible. So I assume you are talking non-Christians???
Thank you for confirming that keeping church services closed does not violate your 1st Amendment.
If people are going to food banks and practicing social distancing that's both an acceptable and necessary risk. Collecting in groups for unnecessary purposes like church is an unacceptable risk which people who actually care about their neighbors would forgo. My Mom's very religious, but she's also caring, so she attends Mass on TV. She doesn't want to potentially harm herself or others by making a stupid, meaningless statement by going to Church. Her values, and consequently mine, are to care about others.
The rest of your post starting with this is just selfish nonsense. Christianity is not church, it's a philosophy. I wouldn't mind if this behavior did not risk healthcare workers and innocent bystanders. I believe that people should be allowed to take whatever risks they choose, as long as they don't drag others into their stupidity.
Really not much difference between people attending church, following safety guidelines and those who go to other places where the same can be said.
I assume people who choose to go out know the risks by now.
Whether it is essential for others or not is not for you or others to decide for them, us, me. The bill of rights is essential
Because they are facts
Not for you to determine for us
It's not for you to determine for us.
He didn’t say that. The secular progressive desire to see our churches shut down is noted.
Talk about priorities! The first thing, in Wisconsin, they flocked to the bars.
No masks. No distancing. Idiots.
It's the tRump generation - ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
Your opinion on anything? totally irrelevant.
They went to celebrate victory over tyranny
Yes we will choose to go to church ourselves regardless of whether secularists like it or not. No one is determining that you have to go.
well, we have lives to live and families to feed,
but you can feel free to stay inside..
we are completely okay with that
But they aren’t ok with their not being able to dictate the terms and conditions that we live our lives under.
I would never expect otherwise from them. todays left has a severe communist bent.
"control over the people" is a fairly standard communist mindset
luckily the american spirit does not do "control over the people" very well.
I keep trying to tell them they are not stuck in here with trump, they are stuck in here with us.
trump is not their problem = trump is the direct result of pissing us off.
I pray daily in hopes they continue pissing us off ( the more the merrier )
Exactly. John is pretty much the only one of them here that gets it. We put the President where he is and generally appreciate the job he’s done on our behalf and the promises he’s kept. And Trump is right too. They are after us even more so than they are. Him.
If it is not required for your religion, the Bill of Rights does not come into effect for it.
The bible determined that a church is not essential, not me. So argue about it with your god.
Again. You have absolutely no say whatsoever in determining what is required for my religion. We are going to meet using social distancing and precautions whether you like it or not and unless you live somewhere like Chicago, there’s not a thing that you can do about it
That must be why Paul and the apostles started churches everywhere they went when they took the gospel to the world around them from Ethiopia to Rome to India.
The bible determined that a church is not necessary. Are you arguing that the bible is wrong???
Are you advocating breaking the rules? What does your bible feel about anarchy?
Churches were built to spread the word of your god (indoctrination), followers already know it, so why is a church necessary for you to pray at?
Does it seriously bother you this much that some people believe in God and want to go to church?
Or is it just that you have no control or say over it that bothers you most?
Correct. So let's compare similar venues.
A church is inherently social with people sequestered in a small space interacting with each other. Not only are they talking (sending airborne particles), but they are singing (propelling the particles to greater distances).
Similarly, a bar (especially with music) is inherently social with people sequestered in a small space interacting with each other. They are talking and typically in close proximity due to the volume of the music. Typically they are yelling to each other which propels the particles to greater distances.
So, it is logical that if bars (and similar venues) are allowed to be open then churches also should be allowed to be open. And, if bars are open with severely restricted capacities, social-distancing, masks, etc. in place then churches should do likewise.
You ignored Ozzwald's question and went personal instead.
Don't give a crap what you do on your spare time.
Does it bother you that church services may spread a disease that has killed over 100,000 Americans, and hasn't stopped yet?
Give me a number, how many additional deaths is your church services worth? 10,000 more deaths okay with you? 1000? 20,000? Give me a number you are comfortable with.
He/she always ignores the questions. When you don't have a viable answer, you deflect.
Good for you--I just love it when people stay the heck out of my business.
Not in the least--if the church is following safety guidelines and practicing social distancing. Does it bother you when folks can go to WalMart or Target and contract the disease?
Pretty hard to put a price tag on a human right. No one has to die for churches to open.
I hope no one else gets Covid-19. But I am not willing to give up every right because a few folks "feel" uncomfortable. If it bothers you, simply chose not to go to church. Wear a mask. Practice social distancing. Avoid people. Your problem is solved.
What convinced you that you needed to post an outright lie?
More COVID-19 cases linked to California church services
Coronavirus: Over 40 Covid-19 cases traced to church service in Germany
Over 100 coronavirus cases in Germany tied to single day of church services
CDC tracks cluster of coronavirus cases in rural Arkansas to church, raising alarm on religious gatherings
Both Walmart and Target carry groceries and other " ESSENTIAL " items. A church has nothing " ESSENTIAL ".
You still refuse to answer the question, so as of when I posted it, it was the truth.
Still a lie. Please don't compound things by more lying.
I answered your questions earlier. Did you not read my reply to you in post #4.1.22?
I answered your questions. I don't have to answer the same fucking questions over and over to satisfy some whim of yours.
I didn't refuse the first time, but I damn sure did the second time since it was virtually the same fucking questions.
But if it makes you feel better to lie, have at it!
Didn't know everyone else died and made you the decider in chief of exactly what is essential to all people.
You choose to not go to church--good for you.
If others choose to go--good for them.
You are no more at risk because someone else went to church than if someone had gone to Wal-Mart or Target.
You'd be better off with more reading and less writing.
I answered his questions earlier.
Perhaps you didn't like my answers.
Pretty sure that I don't want to be infected by worshippers of mythology and superstition who don't have the right to endanger my life by flaunting the rational rules of science during an ever-spreading global pandemic.
If I can't go to my library, radical religionists shouldn't be able to mass gather.
No one is flaunting your life. Your life isn't at more risk because someone attends a church, if the church is practicing social distancing and state guidelines.
I agree about going to libraries. But I don't think people are calling for libraries to remain closed. Are they doing that where you live?
I guess what irks me is the fact that all these, or most it seems, people who are against churches opening don't even GO to church let alone hang out with people who do. And if they do, no one is twisting their arms to attend . Just stay the heck home. I could be wrong but........................prolly not
Exactly.
I don't think it really even has anything to do with the virus. They just want to make it harder if not impossible for people to worship.
A person is no more at risk attending a church that follows safety guidelines than you are going to a grocery store or hairdresser.
I will repeat myself then.
Your statement was:
My question was:
You claim you answered. Did you lie, or can you show me your answer?
4.1.53
Do I have to re-link all those news articles???
That is one ignorant statement... Church attendance is not " ESSENTIAL ". You stated that yourself all the way back up at 4.1.22
Doesn't fucking matter if it is deemed essential or not. And if you can gather at one place, one should be able to do the same as long as guidelines are followed. Texan1211 is right.
You seem to be one of the leaders of that "movement". Are you?
Your opinion, and worthless as such.
Guidelines say you cannot gather there. You seem confused.
When he said that you don't need churches to practice religion? yes I agree, he was right.
What movement? please provide evidence that a "movement" even exists, other than in a toilet.
Are you both trying to be purposely obtuse? If someone, even someone who practices social distancing wearing a mask, goes to church, a bar, and a pool party, they increase the risk of getting the disease. This means that they present a greater danger to those who limit their excursions to essentials like food & cleaning products. Also, since they increase their risk, they are more likely to get sick and risk healthcare workers. No one is interested in controlling other people, what they're trying to do is protect those of us who care about our neighbors from those who are too selfish to give a shit.
There are six Asian-Pacific countries whose combined population is nearly as great as ours. Their people cooperated with the government mandates on quarantining, social distancing, and mask wearing. Their federal governments also led the covid-19 response, and made sure there were adequate testing capabilities to re-open. Their per capita death rate is 1/50 ours, and none of their economies have been trashed like ours.
For god sakes, Trump has made wearing a mask a political statement in in this country.
Whoever is flaunting CDC social distancing guidelines is spreading the coronavirus and, thusly, increasing my chances of contracting it. Even though I live way out in the country and have stockpiled supplies over the years, I do run out of beer and cigarettes on occasion and appreciate how most in the little one-horse town where I shop are following the guidelines.
According to their website, the library remains closed "indefinitely". While I don't like it, it is the wise course of action. Libraries are perfect transfer points for viruses.
The President declared that our faith and prayers are essential and that under the constitution any secular pursuit that is opening up can’t exclude religious groups. We support the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment
The bottom line is that you have absolutely no say whatsoever as to what we deem we need to do. At this point, meeting because you oppose it just to make a point that we can is reason enough.
I see what the problem is. You don't seem to know who wrote what. Those are NOT MY WORDS. I don't know how to explain that any other way. So YES, your statement is a lie as far as relating to me.
AGAIN, you never asked me that question, so NO, I didn't answer. You asked HA that question in post #4.1.44.
It is still all there, ready to be read by you.
You asked ME questions in post 4.1.19, and I answered in post 4.1.22
Here is my answer:
So, yeah, I claimed I answered because I did!
Please check who the fuck you are responding to and what you are responding to before posting any more crap to me.
Thanks.
You asked ME questions. Church buildings aren't necessary TO ME. I DON'T speak for others.
I also don't presume to tell others what THEY should or should not deem essential in their lives.
It isn't.
Except for public health interests. People need groceries to eat. One doesn't need a church to pray, worship, ect..
groceries can be delivered or brought curbside, so no need for customers in store.
What do CDC guidelines say about church attendance? Take a look! https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/faith-based.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fphp%2Ffaith-based.html
And that's what some people do.
why not demand that grocery stores not allow customers inside? surely you don't want the customers exposed!
You link to commonly known guidelines.
What is your point?
The stores in my area all limit the number of shoppers in the building and impose social distancing. They have barriers between checkout and patrons. They do not allow patrons to use their own bags anymore. They constantly wipe down carts and other surfaces. Every employee and patron must wear a mask. Plus some provide curbside pickup and others will deliver.
This makes great sense because people must indeed have food and supplies to survive. This is essential unqualified.
Churches may be psychologically essential to some but clearly people can survive without attending a physical church service. Nothing prevents virtual services. Further, if a church wants to open for physical services then they should take the precautions in place. Basically, a constant vigil of cleaning. Everyone wears a mask. Social distancing (every other pew empty and 6' between attendees). They should probably not sing (propels particles) and minimize public praying in unison. The choir, if any, can be isolated and distant from each other or they can use pre-recorded music.
In short, if one is compelled to go to what is normally a very crowded in-door facility and take an unnecessary risk, it can be done. This is exactly the kind of precautions that would occur when another non-essential, inherently crowded indoor business such as a bar reopens.
Illinois churches are claiming victory in a much-watched legal battle after the state on Thursday withdrew all restrictions on houses of worship.
The state issued new guidelines for churches in a nine-page document that recommends – but does not require – that churches “consider limiting attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower” amid the coronavirus outbreak.
Previously, a state order limited in-person gatherings to 10 persons.
“Recognizing the centrality of worship in many people’s lives and the spiritual and emotional value of prayer, community, and faith, this guidance provides recommendations for places of worship that choose to resume or expand in-person activities, and for those that do not,” the document reads.
The guidelines were issued the same night Pritzker’s administration faced a U.S. Supreme Court deadline to respond to a lawsuit brought by a Chicago church, Elim Romanian Pentecostal, that has continued meeting despite the order. The city of Chicago threatened the congregation with closure.
Liberty Counsel, which represented the congregation in the suit, called the state’s action Thursday a “complete victory in the near term.” Liberty Counsel also represented another church, Logos Baptist Ministries.
“The unilateral actions of Gov. J.B. Pritzker is the classic example of tyranny,” said Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver. “He knew he did not have authority to trample on the First Amendment rights of churches and houses of worship, but he did anyway and continued to do so until his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. ... While we are happy that all churches and houses of worship no longer have any restrictions, we want to make sure this tyranny and abuse never happens again.”
Liberty Counsel, which lost in lower courts and had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, said it will continue its lawsuit in order to prevent Pritzker from issuing a similar order in the future.
In its brief to the Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel argued that churches should be allowed to open and operate by using the same health guidelines that stores and businesses use. Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church requires attendees to sit at least six feet apart. Temperatures are checked at the door, and the congregation operates at a 15 percent seating capacity.
The brief argues the state’s action violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, California filed its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday in a lawsuit filed by a Chula Vista, Calif., congregation. California urged the justices to let it continue restricting churches. The state lets houses of worship meet at a 25 percent capacity.
Related:
‘Whatever Means are Necessary’: Chicago Threatens to Close Church that Defied Order
'Stand up for Jesus' – Businessman Will Pay $500 Fines for Churches that Defied City’s Order
Photo courtesy: Clay Banks/Unsplash
Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Post, The Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel. https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/illinois-backs-down-says-churches-can-meet-again.html
What is your point?
That we are reopening and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.
So why are you REPLYing to me? I have never argued that churches cannot reopen.
churches should and will be allowed to open when following safety rules
Why write this to me? Do you think that I have argued that churches must stay closed?
Bizarre.
kind of what the whole discussion is about, but it's cool if you didn't know that
My part of this discussion has been to talk of proper precautions for venues such as churches.
Given you replied to me one would expect that your response would have something to do with what I wrote.
Apparently you do not bother to read what some write and go immediately to snark. Great contribution to the site.
Because people still need to eat. Groceries are essential businesses. Churches are not. Or is a church a business?
churches are not businesses. gee. you didn't already know that?
Gee, got any more snark to go with your snark?
[deleted]
like I said, if my posts disturb you, there is a very good remedy you can try all on your own
[deleted] Churches are not businesses and only militant non believers could delude themselves into thinking they are. There are essential things that no amount of money can buy and the comfort, peace, and security one can get from attending church is one such
Careful there. You might be treading on thin ice with those comments.
[deleted]
I’m used to conservative believers getting a lot of the movie “ the color purple” replays and scenes deleted from the like minded when we debate the secularists.
I didn't say churches are businesses and since they are not, then they are not essential.
The constitution and the federal government disagree. Religion is essential.
I didn't say religion. I said churches.
That's funny. They provide a service and collect fees. Most churches don't tolerate free loaders.
During the pandemic both PA and OH list them as essential businesses which needed to remain open.
Could be an interesting article topic.........
This has been a comical display. It does not matter what you write, we have individuals substituting their own words, pretending they are yours and then engaging in juvenile taunts.
If one cannot formulate a decent rebuttal it is best to remain silent.
Funny, the way I wrote that reminds me of this quote attributed to Maurice Switzer (and Lincoln and Samuel Clemens):
Comical indeed. But then, any statement along the lines of "God did it" is always comical. In a bad comedy sort of way.
bullshit. have you ever been in a church where they forced you to donate?
if you choose to believe churches are businesses, then that's on you.
I do not consider honest, legal churches to be a business (and, since you seem unable to read and communicate what Gordy wrote, neither does he).
Further, SP (since you seem unable to read what he wrote too) was simply saying that there are similarities and that exploring those similarities might be interesting.
That established, an argument can easily be made in support of the posit that churches are a special kind of business. But I will not waste my time here since what is written is most likely to not be read (or at least not faithfully acknowledged). So I will simply drop a third party article ( Why Most Churches are Businesses ) that notes the similarities. Something to consider for edification since your impressive argument —in its entirety— was simply:
Better to have remained silent IMO.
I never said you or Gordy believed churches are businesses. I read just [fine.Deleted]
You pretended as though he believed that with comments (now deleted) and also with this juvenile quip:
Or did you mean something entirely different? Feel free to clarify.
please stop your projecting.
why bother to clarify when it will be twisted into something else?
it's all there in black and white
Learn the meaning of the terms you use. Projection, as typically applied in a social forum, is when an individual accuses another of behavior that the accuser him/herself is actually engaging in.
Here is a fine example of projection:
Since we are speaking of social forum behavior, this:
Is a bluff. It is indeed in 'black & white' and you are pretending that readers cannot see for themselves what you wrote and that they do not notice that when given the chance to set the record straight you punted with a bluff.
Finally @4.1.107 uses the 'I know you are but what am I' style of rebuttal.
very good definition of projection. I can see where it applies to you
Once again, over and over, you do not need a church for faith and prayers and even the Bible backs this up.
Never claimed to, no idea what you've been reading. Or is this just another straw man argument?
So you ARE advocating breaking the rules. Thanks for finally answering the question.
The bible does, and it says churches are not essential.
Mormon churches require tithing.
but they don't refuse people wishing to attend service . so that is a fail.
please quote the scripture stating churches are not essential.
But they can restrict access to the temple , volunteering, the sacraments or other participation during informal discipline by a bishop.
All quotes in this post are taken from "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings" by Elder M. Russell Ballard (an LDS apostle) in the September 1990 Ensign , an official LDS publication.
For the record, when visiting a family member in Denver, a trip to the Denver Temple was arranged by invitation only.
For some reason I was denied entry to the Temple as a non member.
The family decided to skip the event and go straight to lunch and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science instead.
Please note that the Denver Temple is currently closed due to the pandemic, by order of the First Presidency of LDS regardless of government recommendations or orders.
if you think that the church won't let people in if they have not tithes, then show evidence of it. otherwise it is all conjecture
What in the world are you going on about now?
And WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING I was talking about?
Already did, look for yourself.
I have looked.
What post is it in?
In 4.1.111, you stated this:
The bible does, and it says churches are not essential.
I see no where since that post where you quoted any scripture, never mind scripture saying what you claim it does.
Way, way, way up there. This has been a very VERY long thread.
4.1.6
Matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
That has nothing to do with going to church. No one at church besides the pastor and those he designates prays out loud in a church service. Individual members listen or pray silently during that time. The rest of the service is worship in the form of scripture, singing, special features like mission stories and of course the sermon. Religious services are essential
Singing & praying in a designated building is essential? There's nothing you can do at a church that can't be done in one's home.
Do you recognize that churches vary considerably in their methods of worship?
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others.
So you feel you must be seen by others to pray?
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Do you have your own room in a church?
Again, that’s not something that you are allowed to decide for us. Period. We don’t give hoot what you or any of the secularist storm troopers think. We feel the need to meet and worship together and we have the law and constitution on our side and we are going to do so your objections to the contrary notwithstanding.
I’m certain that they do.
Jesus himself went to synagogue and participated in services when he was here. His comparing the public prayer of the hypocrite Pharisee and the humble publican was not a renunciation of group worship. Jesus even announced that He was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy regarding the Messiah at a synagogue worship service in Nazareth.
You don't get to decide what is deemed essential either. I look at things more pragmatically (as opposed to going by mere "feeling"). And there is nothing "essential" about a church. And note, I did not state any objections about actually attending a church. Only that is is hardly essential.
So you are saying it is okay for you to disregard the bible, because Jesus may have? Is that what you're saying? You are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible to obey?
Not to mention the bible is chock full of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy. Christians still swear by it though.
That certainly doesn't say that churches are not essential--well, at least not in any language I know.
I know, I know--you gave a quote from the bible and I am expected to just accept that it says what you claimed when it clearly does not.
Please point out where it says churches are not essential.
Congregating for services in churches is not essential for society to function while fighting a pandemic. Similarly, bars, sporting venues, fitness centers, theaters, etc. are not essential for society to function while fighting a pandemic.
Example of essential organizations include (but are not limited to):
I do get to decide what is essential for me. You can decide what is essential for you. Neither of us can determine what is essential for another.
Once again, I didn't say what's personally essential. Only whats actually essential. Perhaps it might help if you looked at it objectively rather than by feeling.
Some hear only what they wish to hear and read only what they wish to read ... sometimes even if what is desired to read was never written.
Funny, that.
Indeed. That is also an example of how emotion or "feeling" can cloud rational or objective thought. Some become emotionally defensive and/or irrational and tune out what is actually being said.
I believe it was originally Hebrew and Aramaic.
Look it up yourself, it was a quote. I even provided where that quote was in the bible. If reading is too difficult, I believe you can get it in audiobook format.
Wow, how many times are you going to ask for the same quote? Your previous sentence even admits that I provided it to you.
Seems the demand is for you to find the exact words 'churches are not essential', not merely the semantic equivalent. The faux obtuseness tactic of 'it does not say that' is oft used when one is in denial after being shown to be wrong. Note the absence of explanation as to why, just the mere declaration of denial.
I've often gotten the "it does not say that" reply when arguing that separation of church & state is in the Constitution. You are correct that some use that tactic when they are demonstrably erroneous.
This especially happens with the Bible. Point out obvious (blatantly obvious) passages such as:
And some will still deny that slavery (the owning of a human being as property) was never condemned as immoral by God but, rather, was condoned.
Sometimes there is the justification that since it's god, then God can do whatever god wants. Basically, God lays out the rules, but doesn't follow them himself if he doesn't want to. Quite the hypocrisy.
What you quoted was in English.
I acknowledged you gave me a quote.
Already acknowledged, so what are you going on and on about now?
That sounds like something a complete ass would write.
Until you provide one that says what you claimed this quote said--that churches are not essential. Got one yet? Or still scrolling through the internet furiously?
I clearly stated you provided a quote. Now, if you wish to continue, please provide the quote you claim states the church is not essential.
Since we both know you are incapable of providing it, let's end your embarrassment.
Caio!
Or something that I would write when dealing with a complete ass.
Yup, see I told you why I would have to write it that way.
Wow, dude, you hit the nail on the head with Texan. Bummer I can only like your comment once.
Perhaps it is wiser to not make bogus claims, get called out on them, then try to "back" it up with more bogus shit.
Simple thing, and something you stated the Bible says.
Show me where the Bible says churches are nonessential.
I have asked repeatedly, and you have come up empty every time.
Let me know in the future if you ever get that quote you claim is there in the Bible.
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. You've been shown, over and over, you know you're wrong so now you're playing with semantics. You are making yourself look like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
If you want to argue further, why don't you show where the bible says you need one. But we both know you won't, because you can't, so your childish replies are along the lines of "you made the claim", which I did and provided title and verse to it.
You're next claim is, "but it doesn't say church specifically, so you can't prove it". Completely ignoring the FACT that the quote tells you to pray/worship PRIVATELY, NOT AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. But it doesn't say church, since churches are well know for being secluded with nobody else in the vicinity...right?????
What is the next non-argument that you're going to make??? Is it that the bible does say to worship only in a church? OF COURSE NOT, because it doesn't say that. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? You haven't yet, so I doubt you can.
But if anything comes of all this, maybe it will be for you to do even a little research before spouting off. Personally I doubt it.
Here is what you quoted:
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Now, perhaps you have some special language only you can understand, but in English, it says absolutely nothing about churches being nonessential.
Because I wasn't so stupid as to claim the Bible says something and then am unable to back it up, there is no need for me to do so. If I claim the Bible says something, you can bet your last penny that I will prove it.
I recommend instead of just guessing what I will write, you simply read and comprehend what I do write.
You want some quotes? From the Bible? About churches? Okay.
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Hebrews 10:25
not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Psalms 150:1 - 127:6 - Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
1 Timothy 3:15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Psalms 122:1 - (A Song of degrees of David.) I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD.
IF you gather I am there. FAIL...
Gathering in the morning, nothing to do with worship. FAIL...
Having to go all the way back to the old testament? I thought the new testament over rode it. It is also not an instructable requiring worship only in his sanctuary. Closer, so lower case fail.....
How to behave in o church??? back to FAIL!!!
Translation, "Yay! Let's go to church!". No mandate, FAIL....
Nothing you quoted says you must worship in a church. Only one of your quotes even came close to addressing it.
Seems you are required to deliver a quote that not only suggests that it is actually good to pray in private rather than be part of a public display at church but must use the exact words 'churches are not essential'. Yet on the flip side —the rebuttal that would show that churches are essential— not only are those exact words not required, but the entire argument is equivocated down to simply passages "about churches".
This is pathetic. A perfect example of why it is best to stop arguing once an argument is lost.
Well, one must possess the ability to comprehend what is written.
I hope that becomes you one day.
And I never claimed that the Bible says you must worship in a church. Now you are trying to twist what I actually wrote and then attempting to argue it. Bad form, sport.
Come back when someone has explained what I wrote to you.
I don't have enough paper and crayons to enlighten you now.
He never will, it is almost....like...what would happen if someone (anyone, no one in particular) were getting paid for this.
Glad to see you have found gainful employment.
An argument from incredulity. The key problem with this argument is that there is no escaping the concept of undesigned complexity.
If the universe requires a designer (because it is too complex to 'just exist') then by the very same logic, the designer requires a designer.
This infinite regress problem of designers designing designers is side-stepped by theology with the declaration that 'God has always existed'. But this declaration produces an even greater problem: the eternal existence of the most complex sentient entity possible — unfathomable complexity that 'just exists'.
No matter what, logic always brings us to the inexplicable conclusion that unfathomable complexity either evolved over time or simply 'just exists'. To wit, merely declaring 'God did it' shuts down all logic and simply declares magic.
If God 'just exists' is acceptable as an answer, then one could declare anything 'just exists'. For example, one could declare a reality where energy interacts on its own and forms patterns over time that we view as meaningful. For example, the formation of a star and a solar system by a process of gravity collecting cosmic gas and dust into orbs with the largest of the orb spontaneously igniting a chain reaction that emits light and heat for the orbs (planets) that orbit it.
Instead of the most complex entity 'just existing', the above scenario posits that energy (or something lower) 'just exists' and interacts over time to produce patterns. Complexity, in this case, emerges ... it does not simply 'just exist'. And this has the added conceptual advantage of being evidenced.
God has always existed and always will. He is the source of all that there is.
That's nice. Prove it!
see? every single time. I just wonder why they don't bleat that infamous, worn out "prove it" line to start with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I laid out a thoughtful post @5. Do you have anything of value to add or will your entire contribution be a platitude of meta?
TiG @5 ☞ To wit, merely declaring 'God did it' shuts down all logic and simply declares magic.
if and when I choose to respond to you. you will be the second to know
Try to offer something other than snark, meta or platitudes.
if what I wrote bothered you, you have the option of ignoring my posts.
Really? Prove it!
Its sad that you simply refuse to accept the fact that He did it. No magic involved.
It's sad that you believe that he did it, especially since you can't prove it.
I’m going to keep saying it and not proving it forever more. We believe by faith and refer to the example of Jesus who met demands of signs and wonders so that they might believe (the prove it crowd of His time) here with silence. God said it, we believe it, that settles it! No proof for you!
No credibility (or intellectual honesty) for you either. But keep repeating your BS all you want. You'll oyou garner challenges and laughter from rational minds.
No, ancient men with pens, imagination and political motivations wrote it and you believe it came from God.
Talk about the ultimate in con jobs and gullibility.
That is the secular progressive way. It’s all they have.
God inspired those men and women as to what to write and then what to include when they were all compiled to make the Christian Holy Bible.
That is mere belief based on faith and against the evidence. While you are of course free to believe whatever you wish, belief is not truth.
It is interesting observing you fail at every turn to actually make an argument but instead make (at best) a platitude. Seems counter-productive.
Was that supposed to be clever or something? It certainly wasnt anything of value or logical.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAxkNblDp2X/?igshid=1a0bevepo33np
Back then if you heard voices (God) you were called a prophet. Now days, you hear voices and get put on medication.
Unless one claims god talked to them. Somehow, that delusion still gets a free pass. Especially from other theists.
If one can get past believing something purely on faith (i.e. simply because someone told them it was true) then pretty much any belief is possible. That seems to be a common characteristic of our species — believing what is desirable even if there is not a shred of supporting evidence.
Indeed. We see that in children. They might believe anything simply because someone tells them. But one would expect grown adults to be more rational and actually question what we are told, especially if what's being told is downright absurd.
Well, our species does tend to be overly emotional and irrational. We like to go with what's comfortable, even if it means ignoring (or lacking) evidence or reality itself.
We all must put forth an effort to think critically. It is much easier to simply accept what others claim. Research takes an effort, and even if one does not do research, just the reasoning process to come to one's own conclusion (verses mere acceptance) takes a lot of effort.
Thus the quickest and easiest way to 'know' something is to simply accept what others tell you. But it is the surest way to 'know' a lot of false 'truths'.
Most people need to be taught how to think critically and then encouraged to actually do so.
Perhaps 1 problem is that some people are too mentally lazy to think critically and/or rationally. It's much easier to simply accept or believe what one is told, as no effort is required for that.
Pragers whole argument falls apart here:
Well, the self-proclaimed expert on Judaism kind of blew it. If we are using Leviticus 25:10 as the cornerstone of our liberty, then it doesn't belong to evangelicals, but to the Jews, since they actually wrote the book, something that Prager seems to have missed. He seems to feel no need to give congratulations to the actual people who wrote it, but rather be the good kiss ass that he is. Everything else from that point on is nothing more than a hodgepodge justification for selfishness about the lockdown and confusing that as liberty. No one can have liberty if it steps on another man's toes. Something our founding father's understood when they wrote the constitution.
As for belief in an afterlife or not... God or not.... does it really matter if we can't be good to each other in this lifetime? Prager seems to have no value in that.
Where do you get from anything he wrote that he sees no value in being good to each other in this lifetime? It seems he advocates for Christians and Jews to do just that and to respect each other.
He promotes himself as something he is not. He is also using his bully pulpit to make points that are ill conceived. Using faith as a reason for our current condition is just wrong.
The lack of faith and belief is the biggest reason for our current condition which is readily fixable according to 2Chronicles 7:13-15.
Or maybe our situation is due to a lack of logic and reason.
Why do you think objectively reasoning through a situation based on quality facts / evidence would produce results superior to wishful thinking and/or blind trust?
After all, who says that organic chemistry (build on centuries of incremental scientific progress) produces better results than alchemy or a blood sacrifice?
When it comes to dealing with coronavirus (and variants) should we tap our biologists and chemists or simply pray?
Because results can be observed, measured, and validated. Repeatedly if necessary too.
Organic Chemists, or any sound scientist/science minded individual.
There are those (some here on NT) who think prayer will actually help eliminate and/or treat Covid. Because god will (some believe) magically cure it. But only if you believe enough, right? But I think I'll stick with scientists who can actually produce tangible results.
Yeah, maybe you are right. Maybe it is best to stick with sound evidence and formal objective reasoning. Wishful thinking has some psychological benefits but ultimately science and engineering demonstrably works whereas theology has yet to deliver anything but promises.
Oh theology will deliver on its promises. All you have to do is believe enough and wait until you die. After all, would theology lie?