SCOTUS, California, and Churches.

[Diogenes]

In case no one here has heard, SCOTUS has decided to allow California churches to resume in person gatherings at 25% while still banning singing and chanting. Personally, I think that's an acceptable compromise between having religious services but keeping them as minimal as possible during a public health crisis.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/d...in-california/

[mikewhitney]

In case no one here has heard, SCOTUS has decided to allow California churches to resume in person gatherings at 25% while still banning singing and chanting. Personally, I think that's an acceptable compromise between having religious services but keeping them as minimal as possible during a public health crisis.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/d...in-california/

What scientific data supports that nonsense? This is like Solomon splitting the baby in 4 pieces to satisfy the dispute between the two mothers.

I see that this is an intermediate decision to allow the state to provide more evidence

The votes are: overturn indoor worship ban (6-3), uphold singing ban unless the plaintiffs prove more (6-3), and uphold capacity limits for now for the state to have time to justify them (5-4).

This in no ways upholds the state obligations under the 14th amendment to be limited by the US Constitution first amendment.

[Reepicheep]

In case no one here has heard, SCOTUS has decided to allow California churches to resume in person gatherings at 25% while still banning singing and chanting. Personally, I think that's an acceptable compromise between having religious services but keeping them as minimal as possible during a public health crisis.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/d...in-california/

This is the same as Alberta, except we are limited to 15% of fire code capacity. At my congregation, I'm the guy running around before the service with a clipboard, making sure that people sitting in the balcony, main floor, and basement don't surpass each level's maximum capacity. We still have a full compliment of hymns, but instead of members singing, we have a cantor who stands at the front of the congregation and sings on behalf of the entire congregation.

[Cow Poke]

Fortunately, our sanctuary is large enough that we can accomplish distancing by 'roping off' every other pew and still handle the crowd that shows up for church.

[kccd]

In case no one here has heard, SCOTUS has decided to allow California churches to resume in person gatherings at 25% while still banning singing and chanting. Personally, I think that's an acceptable compromise between having religious services but keeping them as minimal as possible during a public health crisis.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/d...in-california/

I think the first priority during a pandemic should always be public safety.

Having said that, the churches should be able to operate as described in the decision if other nonreligious venues are currently open and operating under similar restrictions, like TV shows with studio audiences, singing contests, concerts, etc.

If however, breakouts are traced to specific churches, then further restrictions should be imposed.

I personally don't get the need for in-person worship services. My church did a few parking lot services in the early fall, but otherwise we have only done virtual services, and that seems to be working fine. We even have coffee hour by zoom.

[Diogenes]

What scientific data supports that nonsense? This is like Solomon splitting the baby in 4 pieces to satisfy the dispute between the two mothers.

I see that this is an intermediate decision to allow the state to provide more evidence

It's a pragmatic balance between allowing people to worship indoor and the state's interest in public health. Remote worship has been around since radio preachers and televangelist, doing it over the internet is just the tech of our time. There's no official worship or pushing non-official worship underground like in China. It's a matter of public safety. There is a difference between prohibition and temporary restriction. It's conducive to public health to temporarily restrict all public gatherings. I agree with South Bay that the state should not treat churches differently than night clubs et al. If anything, night clubs et al should be closed fully as opposed to the 25% capacity limit for places of worship. That's why the injunctive relief was given, due to the unfair application of leniency.

[mikewhitney]

It's a pragmatic balance between allowing people to worship indoor and the state's interest in public health. Remote worship has been around since radio preachers and televangelist, doing it over the internet is just the tech of our time. There's no official worship or pushing non-official worship underground like in China. It's a matter of public safety. There is a difference between prohibition and temporary restriction. It's conducive to public health to temporarily restrict all public gatherings. I agree with South Bay that the state should not treat churches differently than night clubs et al. If anything, night clubs et al should be closed fully as opposed to the 25% capacity limit for places of worship. That's why the injunctive relief was given, due to the unfair application of leniency.

there is no permission to the govt to decide when and how church groups can meet. the constitutions do not yield such rights to the control of govt. nothing being done by the govt has any scientific support. So there are triple or more things being done wrong by government policy.

it is not anyone's right or responsibility to define how another group worships -- inasmuch as this does not take actions explicitly for harming other people. my rights end where they put an obligation on you to do something on my behalf.

[mikewhitney]

I meant to add that church groups do not need the governors to make rules for the safety of people. We all have minds and the ability to make decisions.
the governor and state agencies can simply provide the information that people can use if it is helpful.

[Diogenes]

there is no permission to the govt to decide when and how church groups can meet. the constitutions do not yield such rights to the control of govt. nothing being done by the govt has any scientific support. So there are triple or more things being done wrong by government policy.

In a plan reading of the 1st Amendment, it says "prohibit" so, at best, the 25% capacity restriction isn't a prohibition. There's also nothing to ban radio, tv, or digital worship. We've known since 20 Feb 220 that churches facilitate the spread Sars-Cov-2 when it was explicitly documented.

Jacobson v Massachusetts gives precedent that the police powers of the State can supersede religious liberty in matters of public health.

Why churches would want to further endanger their own congregants is beyond me.

[mikewhitney]

Good point. Pharoah died for his belief to control the worship of the Jews. I think that case was between taking a shot or paying $5.

We do not know anything about the spread since 97% false positives are obtained by the test procedures.

[Diogenes]

Good point. Pharaoh died for his belief to control the worship of the Jews.

No one is forcing Christians to be subjugated into slavery like Pharaoh did to the Jews. No one is forcing Christians into apostacy like Christians did to Jews in Spain. The primary thing is temporarily reducing the capacity of indoor worship which is a reasonable restriction during a global pandemic of an airborne disease.

We do not know anything about the spread since 97% false positives are obtained by the test procedures.

Citation please.

[mikewhitney]

No one is forcing Christians to be subjugated into slavery like Pharaoh did to the Jews. No one is forcing Christians into apostacy like Christians did to Jews in Spain. The primary thing is temporarily reducing the capacity of indoor worship which is a reasonable restriction during a global pandemic of an airborne disease.



Citation please.

If there were safety concerns that had scientific recommendations, I could suggest following those. We will see if there are any dependable studies.

Here's the report on the RT-PCR test. I thought people would be up to speed on this stuff.

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

This problem about 97% false positives is the easiest point to note about the study but there are other issues about the test process commonly used in the US and UK

3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);


In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

[Diogenes]

If there were safety concerns that had scientific recommendations, I could suggest following those. We will see if there are any dependable studies.

Here's the report on the RT-PCR test. I thought people would be up to speed on this stuff.

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

This problem about 97% false positives is the easiest point to note about the study but there are other issues about the test process commonly used in the US and UK

Thank you editing that to show the false positives are due to the high ct values as opposed to the test itself. I was researching that very issue. I agree that the tests should report the ct value and positivity should be declared in line with the appropriate ct count. The FDA's setting it at 40 is way too high.

[mikewhitney]

Thank you editing that to show the false positives are due to the high ct values as opposed to the test itself. I was researching that very issue. I agree that the tests should report the ct value and positivity should be declared in line with the appropriate ct count. The FDA's setting it at 40 is way too high.

Glad you have been looking at this. There are other problems of having a gold standard example of the virus. There are also concerns about the ability to weed out RNA that can match the points in the RNA while not being the virus of concern.