Choosing life in the face of pandemic.

[Ana Dragule]

This article about Faith and the pandemic expresses a lot of how I feel about Christianity as I have experienced it and the pandemic. There is a lot that was mishandled, but the way Christians I have seen express their feelings about some of the basic restrictions was well expressed.
https://www.americamagazine.org/fait...eighbor-241359

[Thoughtful Monk]

Having read the article a couple times, I'm not sure what to make of it. It starts out by discussing the government restrictions on religious gatherings, suggests that those who defied the restrictions were motivated by greed, and then at the end suddenly pulls in pro-lifers expecting sacrifices from pregnant women. I'm not sure where to start in response.

I guess I'll start with a bunch of bullet points and see what happens.

• I certainly agree that there was a lack of charity between those who followed the government restrictions and those who defied them. I certainly can see both arguments making sense so there should have been more allowance for people following as God led.
• I had my usual reaction: does the author have a point where she would disobey the government? Not within the scope of what she was trying to say but I feel more connected to someone who says, "In this we can obey the government but here's the line when we shouldn't."
• Admittedly this is looking back now, but on-line church is not as beneficial as in-person church. Given the article was from Sept. 2021, that was the view. Now from little I'm seeing on comparisons between in-person and on-line, on-line is not looking as positive as advertised.
• As has been discussed over in Civics, what the government has said about Covid changed over time. Charitably, you can say they were learning. Unfortunately, I do see enough evidence that my welfare wasn't their primary concern through all these lockdowns.
• Yes, Christians didn't love their neighbor as they should have through the pandemic.
• I'm not comfortable with ascribing money has the cause for Christians to defy the lockdown mandates. I'm sure that's true in cases but I have trouble believing that's all cases.
• There is a difference between the unborn who are totally dependent and people who are able to take care of themselves. Not sure I like the precedence that's being set that the government can control me by saying it's for my health. What happens if the government starts saying, "Your health expenses are too much. It's time for you to die."
• There is a big difference between a group of people saying, "you should do this" and the government with all the power it can bring to bear saying, "you shall do this."
• Since everything can be done better, I do agree that Christians can and should do more to support women who chose to keep their baby through comes as the baby grows up
• Yes, Covid was a life-event. Everyone now says before Covid and after Covid. I think it's naive, and not very charitable, of the author to be so dismissive of the people who didn't do as she thinks they should have. Sounds rather controlling.

[NorrinRadd]

Ok, my turn. Unlike TM, I'm kind of an uncharitable jerk, so my tone will reflect that.

-- I'm not a Catholic, so anything in the article about the idea of failing to meet in person being a "sin" that would need to be forgiven is silly to me.

-- I don't know of anyone who insisted on attendance as "a true witness of our devotion to God."

-- Even back in Sept. 2021, in fact even before that, the issue was not that leaders "should only care for our souls" as opposed to physical health. It was always well known that Covid was not equally dangerous to all persons.

-- "I was told I was fearful because I obeyed the bishop and followed lockdown directives, and that if I were a true believer I would be doing all I could to get to the Holy Mass." Well, then you were surrounded by idiots, and if you believe that was representative of all believers who opposed lockdowns, you're ignorant.

-- "Love your neighbor as yourself, Christ commanded." If you think locking down was the only, or even best, way to show "love," again, you're an idiot. "Love" can also be shown by standing up and opposing creeping fascism, such as by meeting together if relatively young and healthy, and staying home if you're old or infirm.

-- The bit about women in crisis pregnancy centers is straight-up retarded. A successful abortion results in a dead human 100% of the time. Catching Covid at that point in the pandemic resulted in death maybe 2% of the time.

-- The bit about "common good" is weak if not retarded. The lockdowns spread more "common harm" than "common good."

-- She has an asinine martyr complex that sees anyone opposing lockdowns and fascism as self-centered, when most were and are concerned about that harm they do to *everyone.*

Typical NY libiot.

[KingsGambit]

You really need to not be so rude. This isn't Civics and AD deserves better interaction than that.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Ok, my turn. Unlike TM, I'm kind of an uncharitable jerk, so my tone will reflect that.

-- I'm not a Catholic, so anything in the article about the idea of failing to meet in person being a "sin" that would need to be forgiven is silly to me.

-- I don't know of anyone who insisted on attendance as "a true witness of our devotion to God."

Typical NY libiot.

As I recall in the Protestant world, John MacArthur preached along the lines of attendance was a witness of our devotion to God. I could believe he would agree with your first point.