Trump outrage of the day

[sherr]

I just saw a headline about Trump's inner circle saying his lawyers are making him look incompetent. I mean, he did that on his own, the lawyers are just giving is good fodder...

Right, he did do that all on his own, but at the same time I 100% believe the headline that his advisors are telling him exactly that. What do you tell a childish narcissist when you want him to stop throwing a tantrum? "Your lawyers are making you look bad" is exactly what I'd say.

[jim555]

What's with the tiny desk Trump is sitting at?  I thought this has to be photo-shopped but it is real.  Looks like his staff is messing with him.

https://twitter.com/kenjeong/status/1332166844178862082/photo/1

[economista]

What's with the tiny desk Trump is sitting at?  I thought this has to be photo-shopped but it is real.  Looks like his staff is messing with him.

https://twitter.com/kenjeong/status/1332166844178862082/photo/1

He's in the diplomatic room in the white house. Over the years there have been quite a few pictures of his signing executive orders or international agreements at that desk as well.

[Just Joe]

I think it is all about the churches wanting the donations they are not getting without packed pews.

Big church mortgages or salaries to pay?

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Just what we need as Covid cases spike going in to the fall - https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that limited attendance at religious services.
...
In the late-night ruling, Barrett sided with the conservatives in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett's impact on the bench, reflecting the Court's rightward shift.

No problem.  Scrap that law and allow mass religious gatherings.  Just write a new law requiring anyone who has attended any event for any reason that is in excess of X number of people must isolate for a minimum 14 days after each attendance and provide a negative Covid test taken after the 14 days before they are allowed to leave their house.  If caught violating the law it results in being held in jail on remand without bail until trial.

Better to just remove all mandatory restrictions from religious gatherings of any sort and let nature take its course.

[nereo]

Just what we need as Covid cases spike going in to the fall - https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that limited attendance at religious services.
...
In the late-night ruling, Barrett sided with the conservatives in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett's impact on the bench, reflecting the Court's rightward shift.

No problem.  Scrap that law and allow mass religious gatherings.  Just write a new law requiring anyone who has attended any event for any reason that is in excess of X number of people must isolate for a minimum 14 days after each attendance and provide a negative Covid test taken after the 14 days before they are allowed to leave their house.  If caught violating the law it results in being held in jail on remand without bail until trial.

Better to just remove all mandatory restrictions from religious gatherings of any sort and let nature take its course.

Your argument could be extended to say that we ought to lift all mandatory restrictions for everyone with regard to gatherings. To me that is a terrible, dangerous idea.

[RetiredAt63]

Just what we need as Covid cases spike going in to the fall - https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that limited attendance at religious services.
...
In the late-night ruling, Barrett sided with the conservatives in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett's impact on the bench, reflecting the Court's rightward shift.

No problem.  Scrap that law and allow mass religious gatherings.  Just write a new law requiring anyone who has attended any event for any reason that is in excess of X number of people must isolate for a minimum 14 days after each attendance and provide a negative Covid test taken after the 14 days before they are allowed to leave their house.  If caught violating the law it results in being held in jail on remand without bail until trial.

Better to just remove all mandatory restrictions from religious gatherings of any sort and let nature take its course.

Nature taking it's course would mean many cases totally unrelated to the people at the original gathering.  Those asymptomatic people and people who are shedding virus before they show symptoms are walking vectors.  You may be a good lawyer but you are not a good epidemiologist.

[nereo]

Just what we need as Covid cases spike going in to the fall - https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that limited attendance at religious services.
...
In the late-night ruling, Barrett sided with the conservatives in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett's impact on the bench, reflecting the Court's rightward shift.

No problem.  Scrap that law and allow mass religious gatherings.  Just write a new law requiring anyone who has attended any event for any reason that is in excess of X number of people must isolate for a minimum 14 days after each attendance and provide a negative Covid test taken after the 14 days before they are allowed to leave their house.  If caught violating the law it results in being held in jail on remand without bail until trial.

Better to just remove all mandatory restrictions from religious gatherings of any sort and let nature take its course.

Nature taking it's course would mean many cases totally unrelated to the people at the original gathering.  Those asymptomatic people and people who are shedding virus before they show symptoms are walking vectors.  You may be a good lawyer but you are not a good epidemiologist.

This is an example of how the doctrine of ‘Personal Responsibility’ can come into conflict with others’ rights for safety, security and prosperity. When risky behaviors impact non-participants the rights of the risk taker cannot supersede the rights of the bystanders. With a virus such as Covid the actions of a few hundred in one city can spread through the community and literally kill some, make thousands sick and literally curtail the activities of almost everyone else.

[GuitarStv]

Just what we need as Covid cases spike going in to the fall - https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that limited attendance at religious services.
...
In the late-night ruling, Barrett sided with the conservatives in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett's impact on the bench, reflecting the Court's rightward shift.

No problem.  Scrap that law and allow mass religious gatherings.  Just write a new law requiring anyone who has attended any event for any reason that is in excess of X number of people must isolate for a minimum 14 days after each attendance and provide a negative Covid test taken after the 14 days before they are allowed to leave their house.  If caught violating the law it results in being held in jail on remand without bail until trial.

Better to just remove all mandatory restrictions from religious gatherings of any sort and let nature take its course.

Nature taking it's course would mean many cases totally unrelated to the people at the original gathering.  Those asymptomatic people and people who are shedding virus before they show symptoms are walking vectors.  You may be a good lawyer but you are not a good epidemiologist.

This is an example of how the doctrine of ‘Personal Responsibility’ can come into conflict with others’ rights for safety, security and prosperity. When risky behaviors impact non-participants the rights of the risk taker cannot supersede the rights of the bystanders. With a virus such as Covid the actions of a few hundred in one city can spread through the community and literally kill some, make thousands sick and literally curtail the activities of almost everyone else.

Yeah . . . but caring for other people is communism!  :P

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You guys are right. I didn't think about the harm caused by the infected reaching others in everyday life. Perhaps, as previously suggested, religious attendees should be given the privilege to attend large gatherings however they please, but a condition of that privilege would be that they'd need to be tested and/or lock selves down for 14 days before going to work or going outside their household? Seems like a win-win to me.

[GuitarStv]

You guys are right. I didn't think about the harm caused by the infected reaching others in everyday life. Perhaps, as previously suggested, religious attendees should be given the privilege to attend large gatherings however they please, but a condition of that privilege would be that they'd need to be tested and/or lock selves down for 14 days before going to work or going outside their household? Seems like a win-win to me.

How does enforcement work in your proposed solution?

[Roadrunner53]

Well, if the churchgoers were to be locked down for 14 days, they would get out just in time for church again and another lock down for 14 days! They'd never be able to go to work!

I don't see why church can't have smaller amount of attendees, shorter sermons and more attendance times. Or even switch days of the week. Why can't they work with the officials during this very dangerous time. No one is saying they can never go to church. They are saying large groups are prone to spreading this virus. What is so hard to understand? We know the president doesn't grasp the scientific concept as fact but the rest of us should be able to.

[former player]

Well, if the churchgoers were to be locked down for 14 days, they would get out just in time for church again and another lock down for 14 days! They'd never be able to go to work!

I don't see why church can't have smaller amount of attendees, shorter sermons and more attendance times. Or even switch days of the week. Why can't they work with the officials during this very dangerous time. No one is saying they can never go to church. They are saying large groups are prone to spreading this virus. What is so hard to understand? We know the president doesn't grasp the scientific concept as fact but the rest of us should be able to.

Apparently 40% of Americans believe in creationism.  Failing to grasp the scientific concept is not limited to Trump.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Well, if the churchgoers were to be locked down for 14 days, they would get out just in time for church again and another lock down for 14 days! They'd never be able to go to work!

I don't see why church can't have smaller amount of attendees, shorter sermons and more attendance times. Or even switch days of the week. Why can't they work with the officials during this very dangerous time. No one is saying they can never go to church. They are saying large groups are prone to spreading this virus. What is so hard to understand? We know the president doesn't grasp the scientific concept as fact but the rest of us should be able to.

Apparently 40% of Americans believe in creationism.  Failing to grasp the scientific concept is not limited to Trump.

A few days ago I was astonished  when I was told  that in my  rural county lamb's blood was  wiped on   a house's  door frame to ward off  COVID-19.

IDK if only 1 or more than 1 person did this but it must have something to do with the Passover offering.

Whoever it was I doubt that  they're  Jews.

"As the story goes, during the tenth and final plague, God passes through the land of Egypt and strikes down the firstborn of every household. But the Jews have been told to mark their doors with the blood of a lamb they've sacrificed — the Passover offering — and so God 'passes over' their homes."Aug 5, 2014

[jim555]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

[OtherJen]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.   Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

I'm grateful that many dioceses (including the Archdiocese of Detroit) have issued dispensations temporarily relieving Catholics of the requirement to attend Mass in person. In addition to Catholic churches in my area, mainline Protestant churches, synagogues, and mosques reduced or temporarily eliminated their in-person services. We had a terrible local outbreak last spring, and Easter/Passover/Ramadan services and festivities would have made things so much worse.

I understand the reluctance to give up in-person worship, for sure. I lost in-person access to my various volunteer circles in March. I'm not happy about it and it's really fucking hard. I still don't understand the unwillingness by some congregations to put a pause on large gatherings to protect the vulnerable among them and in their greater communities.

[MudPuppy]

Our diocese also issued dispensation from Mass attendance and Eucharist. Our bishop has asked all faithful to wear masks in public and to take social distancing seriously as an act of charity.
 They are offering roughly double the number of Masses they usually have, with whole pews blocked off and services streamed live. Small groups meet via zoom instead of in person now. It’s not perfect but it’s an effort.

[ixtap]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

The Pope, the literal Pope, said that public health take precedence over these rituals.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

The Pope, the literal Pope, said that public health take precedence over these rituals.

So, 2020 years later, it turns out that interpreting what the Bible commands literally could kill off Christianity.  Well, this must have been part of 'the plan'.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/At-one-Houston-church-prophecy-replaces-turkey-15755188.php

While millions of Americans nestle into couches for their post-dinner naps on Thursday, Hlavinka and other members of Reigning Glory Church will begin a three-day fast. They believe their faithfulness to God will spare them the worst of COVID-19.

 

[John Galt incarnate!]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

Issues of religious liberty  will be further complicated by some justices'  cognizance  of hostility toward  religion which  I predict will result in a more solicitous posture when the Court adjudicates free exercise cases.

Furthermore, there is nothing ambiguous about Gorsuch's statements in Bostock.

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

"Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases."

 "But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too." Justice Gorsuch.



Here are some of Justice Alito's thoughts on the matter of hostility toward religion  that IIRC, he expressed during a talk he gave ~2015.


“A wind is picking up that is hostile to those with traditional [faith-based] moral beliefs.”

[Judicial rulings] “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

 “By imposing its own views on the entire country...the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

 “We are seeing this come to pass.”

All of the above means that protection of religious liberty is ascendant.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Well, if the churchgoers were to be locked down for 14 days, they would get out just in time for church again and another lock down for 14 days! They'd never be able to go to work!

I don't see why church can't have smaller amount of attendees, shorter sermons and more attendance times. Or even switch days of the week. Why can't they work with the officials during this very dangerous time. No one is saying they can never go to church. They are saying large groups are prone to spreading this virus. What is so hard to understand? We know the president doesn't grasp the scientific concept as fact but the rest of us should be able to.

If they don't want to work they don't have to work. Probably a win-win there too.

The fact that wacky religions get so much precedence in the States is one of the (few) things I really dislike about the States, but if you're going to give religions precedence, just go the whole hog - let them do whatever they like, subject to lockdown periods, and they can sort themselves out. Maybe allow followers of the same faith to visit each other in their homes (like a massive social bubble) too.

[Roadrunner53]

Put this on Trump's list of failures. Also, he claimed he took it as a preventative early on. Maybe he took too much of it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hydoxychloroquine-psychiatric-dis-orders_n_5fc2fccec5b66bb88c677602

[Travis]

Put this on Trump's list of failures. Also, he claimed he took it as a preventative early on. Maybe he took too much of it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hydoxychloroquine-psychiatric-dis-orders_n_5fc2fccec5b66bb88c677602

All the anti-malaria drugs ending in "quine" seem to have a history of mental side effects going back decades.

[Roadrunner53]

Has anyone seen similarities of Eric Cartman on South Park to Trump?

Eric reminds me of how Trump must have been as a child.

[LennStar]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

A fuck it is!

If my religion says "Once each year thou shall cast three dice, and whence you get three sixes, thou shalt slain a newborn and drick it's blood", is it all right for me to do that?
No difference to Covid, except that you don't drink blood.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

It's easy for people to pile onto this ruling, as seen by this thread alone. However, you are right, it's a complex issue. For instance, as best as I can tell from reading pieces of the majority ruling, the ruling mainly focused on the fact that there were different requirements for churches as opposed to other instances. For example, again as I understand it, the restrictions on churches were a strict person number irrespective of the capacity of the church itself, which was more restrictive than other indoor situations. It was this that they keyed on, and quite frankly, from an unexpert opinion, it does seem like that's a double standard against religions. The ruling wasn't just about churches not being allowed to have any restrictions because they're churches. It was about churches not having more restrictions than other organizations.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

A fuck it is!

If my religion says "Once each year thou shall cast three dice, and whence you get three sixes, thou shalt slain a newborn and drick it's blood", is it all right for me to do that?
No difference to Covid, except that you don't drink blood.

There is an obvious, overwhelmingly  compelling governmental interest in barring religious rituals such as human sacrifice so of course they are not within the ambit of  Free-Exercise Clause protection.

The same cannot be said of attendance restrictions at houses of worship though in my opinion, during a pandemic there are equally  valid arguments which  support and oppose them.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) is instructive as to the dual considerations of "freedom to believe and freedom to act" and avoidance of "unduly [infringing] the protected freedom."



The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect.

On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship.

Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law.

On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.

Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.

Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection.

In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

A fuck it is!

If my religion says "Once each year thou shall cast three dice, and whence you get three sixes, thou shalt slain a newborn and drick it's blood", is it all right for me to do that?
No difference to Covid, except that you don't drink blood.

At this stage the influence of religion is so persuasive that you probably could do it and get away with it. The best we can hope to do is to segregate the fanatics and let them do their thing among themselves.

[LennStar]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

A fuck it is!

If my religion says "Once each year thou shall cast three dice, and whence you get three sixes, thou shalt slain a newborn and drick it's blood", is it all right for me to do that?
No difference to Covid, except that you don't drink blood.

There is an obvious, overwhelmingly  compelling governmental interest in barring religious rituals such as human sacrifice so of course they are not within the ambit of  Free-Exercise Clause protection.

The same cannot be said of attendance restrictions at houses of worship though in my opinion, during a pandemic there are equally  valid arguments which  support and oppose them.

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

That aside, it does not matter if it is a church or an opera house or a "gather all 200 family member from around the country" birthday party.
All of those are non-essential activities.

And Christian religion is always samer than the others.
To go to a church to drink wine that has turned magically into blood is totally okay believe. But if you believe in the religion named "Commuism", than thou shalt be killed! And of course, try to say that there should be a 100% inheritage tax because God created man, but not inheritage, than that may be even worse.

Or what I want to say in other words: Your argument that a place of worship is different is A) stupid and B) in 99,9% of cases means "of my religion or religions I accept" anyway, and is as such not neutral out of the window.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/justices-lift-new-yorks-covid-related-attendance-limits-on-worship-services/#more-297905

This order is a stay on the restriction, the full case will be heard later.

Religions like Roman Catholicism have sacramental elements that require physical presence.  It becomes much more complex when preventing attendance directly interferes with the practice of the religion.    Stopping attendance of sporting events does not involve a Constitutionally protected act.  This is a complex issue and it is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

A fuck it is!

If my religion says "Once each year thou shall cast three dice, and whence you get three sixes, thou shalt slain a newborn and drick it's blood", is it all right for me to do that?
No difference to Covid, except that you don't drink blood.

There is an obvious, overwhelmingly  compelling governmental interest in barring religious rituals such as human sacrifice so of course they are not within the ambit of  Free-Exercise Clause protection.

The same cannot be said of attendance restrictions at houses of worship though in my opinion, during a pandemic there are equally  valid arguments which  support and oppose them.

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

That aside, it does not matter if it is a church or an opera house or a "gather all 200 family member from around the country" birthday party.
All of those are non-essential activities.

And Christian religion is always samer than the others.
To go to a church to drink wine that has turned magically into blood is totally okay believe. But if you believe in the religion named "Commuism", than thou shalt be killed! And of course, try to say that there should be a 100% inheritage tax because God created man, but not inheritage, than that may be even worse.

Or what I want to say in other words: Your argument that a place of worship is different is A) stupid and B) in 99,9% of cases means "of my religion or religions I accept" anyway, and is as such not neutral out of the window.

As I mentioned above, churches did have different rules - they were actually restricted more than any other places, at least that I had seen. In certain locations, there were restrictions of no more than 10 people in locations even if the churches had a capacity of more than 1000 attendees. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html

[Dollar Slice]

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

[talltexan]

Good article in the Post this morning about a Social Studies teacher in Ruby-Red West Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teaching-election-west-virginia/2020/11/29/b8e40a38-2b3a-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

[GuitarStv]

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

[Glenstache]

I found this to be an interesting read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/opinion/trump-conspiracy-germany-1918.html

I've been trying to get my head around how the polarization works at the individual and societal level. Thus far, I think Ezra Klein's book Why We Are Polarized and some of his podcast guests have been the most instructive at getting at how it works instead of just analyzing the after effects. I am honestly having a hard time putting my finger on how much of the "Stop the Steal" pushed by Trump and all of the various iterations are just Trump being petulant (and much of the GOP just keeping its head down because there is no short term strategic gain for individuals to speak up at this point), or if the push to divide is strategic in a broader sense. Demographics are certainly against the GOP now and they have been very systematic in their attempts to disenfranchise voters through districting, voter roll purges, pushing against mail in voting, making access to voter registration more difficult, and allocation of voting resources, not to mention just actually going to court to try and get minority-dominated districts (hellooo Wayne County!) thrown out. There is a clear bias towards staying in power over staying in a democracy. That staying in power takes the justification of attempting to preserve a way of life vis a vie: discussions above of perceived persecution of the religious majority, demographic shifts making whites into a minority, loss of conservatism for more open values (see all of the culture wars over LGBT, etc). I don't know if the overall story arc of 1920s to 1940s Germany is apt, but the push for identity politics over democracy is certainly apparent. Thoughts?

[ender]

imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

[nereo]

imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which don’t seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason we’ve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

[ctuser1]

imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which don’t seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason we’ve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

I heard J.D.Vance once say in one of his youtube interviews that the primary reason is geographical polarization.

I live in a liberal bubble, well separated geographically from the areas described in the WashPost article. To me, the reality these guys face is unfathomable. To them, my reality, I bet, is unfathomable as well! That creates the perfect environment for the "othering" -> polarization.

Perhaps, someday, we could build a civilized broadband all over the US - including rural areas - then some of us snooty liberals could move out of our bubbles in to the real world and avoid being lynched long enough to have an impact on the red bubbles.

Are there some rural areas already with good broadband? I know that Google Fiber has pockets in AL/GA/KS/MO. I don't see my family moving anytime soon (sorry), but I can at least pass along that info to people I know considering such moves in the wake of remote work.

[ender]

imo a lot of the answer to "how are we polarized?" question relates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

Yet this only tells part of the story, no? 
We have always been creatures that form our opinions and world-view based on our own experiences.  Yet somehow our society appears to be more polarized now than it has been in previous decades.  What has changed?

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which don’t seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason we’ve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

Personally I see it as a combination of two factors.

First, social media. As an example, I have extended family entirely bought into the "election fraud" bandwagon and who post on Facebook continuously about this. Pre-facebook (or twitter, whatever social media is in vogue) his beliefs on this would never have generated friction because I wouldn't have known about them. Social media enables people to project their political beliefs trivially, which also crafts an identify of sorts.

Second, changes in news media. Two main things here - ease of publishing content has reduced any barriers to entry for "news" sources. This has created immense quantities of subpar at best news and it is easier than ever to access news that perfectly fits your narrative. Prior to the internet this was much more challenging other than with radio. Print media wasn't something anyone with a website could "create" the way it is now. Most media was much more heavily gated for entry than now. And there are also challenges now related to speed of publishing, too.

Add in geographical polarization?

I'm not an expert on this but I think those factors combined have simultaneously lowered any barrier to entry in news content quality, enabled people to consume news they exclusively agree with, and created a platform for people to have their politics on clear display.

[Glenstache]

In the early days of the internet, there was a euphoria over the concept of easy access to information for the broader populace and how that would improve democracy through a more informed electorate. The last 20-30 years (depending on when you want to mark widespread internet) have shown almost the opposite. Sources of information on the internet are, other than major reputable news organizations, unvetted and unconstrained. People can increasingly silo their information sources and weird conspiracy shit like Qanon has much more fertile avenues to spread. Expansion of broadband has a lot of benefits, but the evidence does not support the expectation of a more informed electorate as a result.

Ezra Klein puts forward a hypothesis that the polarization is a confluence of many factors: the migration of southern conservatives out of the Democrats into the GOP following the Civil Rights Act which aligned party affiliation more closely with other identity politics; growth of conservative media outlets and internet influence; basic psychological patterns of humans and how we process information through a tribal us-vs-them lens and will hurt ourselves to hurt the "other" even more even if the basis for the difference is meaningless (see sports team affiliations). Many of these shifts concurrent with urban-rural and ethnicity demographic shifts have fed back on each other over time to increase polarization. Party affiliation is a much larger part of people's identity than it was 50 years ago (recognizing regional variations in that). Similarly, the geographic loyalty has faded relative to national level political identity (this had some weird quirks with national vs down ballot results this year). Once political identity and personal identity become more strongly intertwined, there is a bigger hurdle to voting for a different party even if the alternate candidate better aligns with your values, what you want as qualifications for the position, and expected outcomes.

Which leads us back to the GOP having little upside to advancing pure democracy (which we never had in the US, but is a direction the needle can go), but plenty of benefit to having a system that favors their (rural, conservative) base and having them increasingly value that identity over other issues. This is the concern with the "Stop the Steal". What if a significant portion of the population no longer values actual elections as the best way to form our government because those elections do not give them the power seat at the table and they have been given the window dressing of the other side "rigging" and "stealing" the election. Nothing like feeling like you have been wronged to get get people on board to do nasty shit. Are we there now? Not quite. This is why I am curious if this is just Trump being petulant or if (as Scott Adams suggests) this is chess that plays our baser instincts as pawns.

[Daley]

What I find strange is that -at least in the US - the two major political parties hold positions which don’t seem to be that far apart, particularly compared to other developed democracies. For whatever reason we’ve begun focusing on a few issues where the parties have largely diametrically opposed views but are also fairly minor issues overall.

I don't have an explanation for the hyper tribalism outside of the echo chamber of social media and a culture that worships outward appearances as a substitute for values and a personality, but you're bang on about the differences between the two major parties. To hear people yell, scream, and argue the past 25 years and especially during Obama's and doubly-so during Trump's administrations, you'd think the gulf between these two were a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon with life-and-death hanging in the balance. Meanwhile, you actually look at the monolithic policies and what's actually supported and done by both as a whole in practice, and you see them for what they are, two flavors of the same creeping right-wing authoritarianism. I've been saying for years that if Obama were 30 years older and could pass, he'd have fit in perfectly as a moderate with Reagan's GOP of the 80's.

It's kind of mind-boggling to think that the overall politically centrist modern Green and Democratic Socialist Parties, and people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are what's considered radical left now. It's the Overton Window at work.

[Plina]

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they don’t seem to care about the protection of others.

[wenchsenior]

Anyone who is interested in the geographical aspect of polarization needs to read this, which is fascinating.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-American-ebook/dp/B0077FAYES

[nereo]

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they don’t seem to care about the protection of others.

I understand and agree with much of what's being said regarding the preferential treatment of church-goers during a pandemic.  However, what's being left out is that religion and its daily practice are deeply embedded in the US constitution and legal precident in ways that hobbies and secular businesses are not. That - from a strictly legal standpoint - ensures that religion will be affording a different level of scrutiny.

[FIPurpose]

Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

[Plina]

Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

Would you say that the division in red and blue churches is also happening in the countryside and smaller towns or is it something you only see in larger cities? I am curious, how do you know if it is a blue or red church if you are new to the area? I tried to Google and imagine my surprised when I found yelp reviews for churches. It is actually even more businesslike then I imagined.

Personally, I don’t like the time investment that I would need to do if I joined local non religious organisations. I don’t mind pitching in now and then if it something I would like to support but to sign up for something every week is not appealing.

[GuitarStv]

The main issue here is if churches have different rules than e.g. an opera house. If the have, thats Bullshit.

Here in NYC, places like the opera house, Madison Square Garden, jazz clubs, comedy clubs and movie theaters are not allowed to be open AT ALL. Churches, synagogues, and mosques are allowed to be open at a reduced capacity. Restaurants and bars are also allowed to be open at a very reduced capacity. Stores are less limited because you don't tend to linger in them and you keep your mask on and don't tend to talk/sing/yell, but larger stores are limiting the number of people inside as well.

Churches think they should be treated like a hardware store instead of like a music venue, even though there's usually music, singing, talking, etc. and you are there for 30-90 minutes. I don't get it.

I live in NYC and if I look out my window I can see one of the largest cathedrals in the world. SCOTUS would like to fill it with some 4000+ people in a pandemic, because that's 50% capacity and therefore totally safe! It makes me really angry that they are trying to endanger people like this. Whenever there is a big funeral or wedding there (in normal times) my neighborhood is full of double-parked cars from the people attending from far-flung areas. I'm sure they are all going for meals afterwards in local restaurants, stopping for coffee, doing errands and so on. If there was a COVID outbreak at a large church like this, it would spread like crazy. We have already seen that COVID spreads like wildfire in this dense city and we have seen that certain religious groups are completely unwilling to police themselves and be safe (see: the 7000-person wedding a few weeks ago in Brooklyn). We need to be able to regulate them. It is absolutely nuts to allow multi-hundred or multi-thousand person events in NYC. But SCOTUS is forcing us to.

You're approaching the problem from a perspective of reason.  Churches are places for singing, talking, gathering closely with others, etc.  Religion is a popular hobby that some like to partake in for entertainment.  Like any of the many other entertainment/sporting/hobby clubs that exist, they are nice to have but not essential.  That's the reasoned argument.

There's also the view that this gathering has incredible value and worth because of GOD (or GODS).  There's no reasonable way to argue this, so it's an argument typically based on emotion and doctrine.  Basically this always boils down to - "I don't think that my private hobby club should be closed - even though by every objective measure it's extremely dangerous during a pandemic".  Zealotry isn't persuasive, but it's usually pretty loud.

These two sides will never see eye to eye because they're fundamentally coming from very different places . . . one is based in measurement/observation and the other in pure fantasy.  The Supreme court has ruled that killing a few more people is nowhere near as damaging as upsetting the delusional - so that's the end of the matter.

I think you could also add the business side of churches. As I have understod most of the chuches in US live on donations. No service were donations are made means no pay to employees or money to rents and upkeap of buildings. No tourist making tours means no income from donations, which is the case everywhere.

I live in a pretty secular country and here the biggest issue have been funerals and the amount of people allowed. Previously 50 people but now lowered to 20 people. If you are a member of the church, you are paying through taxes so everybody gets paid even though the services are digital.

The only one that seems to have a problem with it are some nonconformist churches that believes god protects them so they don’t seem to care about the protection of others.

I understand and agree with much of what's being said regarding the preferential treatment of church-goers during a pandemic.  However, what's being left out is that religion and its daily practice are deeply embedded in the US constitution and legal precident in ways that hobbies and secular businesses are not. That - from a strictly legal standpoint - ensures that religion will be affording a different level of scrutiny.

From a strictly legal standpoint, there's no hard definition of what a religion is . . . so that argument is utterly meaningless.

If I want to go to my BJJ gym I should declare myself a follower of the religion of jiu-jitsu who follows the prophet Mitsuyo Maeda (peace be upon him) and accepts physical sacrament twice during the week, once on Saturday, and every other Sunday.  Not a real religion?  Ha!  Since they're all made up, you can't actually prove that any religion is a real religion.  The supreme court has ruled that the only criteria for acceptance is that you believe sincerely in whatever made up thing you've selected.

Religious practice is in no way different from a hobby.

[OtherJen]

Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.

[Glenstache]

Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.

I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

[ixtap]

Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Whitmer to overturn results, award state to president (Detroit Free Press)

It's the shittiest game of Whack-a-Mole ever. Here's hoping the courts continue to uphold democracy because lord knows the President's administration and national party aren't.

I'm increasingly thinking the goal is not to win these cases (though they would certainly take it if they somehow did), but rather to create a lot of smoke and cause a section of the electorate to question the legitimacy. The throughgoing theme of the Trump administration has been to throw so much bullshit out there that truth is lost in the shuffle. Same here. If he loses and the electoral college does it's thing and elects Biden, then Trump can just chalk it up to the Deep State and that his followers should distrust the government even more and trust only him and his allies moving forward.

Pretty sure this has been the plan for at least the last 4 years, when he was already bithering about all the illegal votes that showed that Clinton won the popular vote. Even set up a commission to look into it, but couldn't find enough people willing to ignore the evidence they found and proclaim him right, so it was disolved.

[FIPurpose]

Add to this the growing polarization of churches themselves. 40-50 years ago you might have found many churches that had split political views, but now churches are almost solidly red or blue, or more commonly, people are abandoning churches altogether. Part of this is the internet where young people (like myself) are discovering that their religion was based on lies, and then add to that the highly charged language around issues like abortion and then wham bam you feel like you no longer belong there.

So now you have the GOP dominating local organizations, clubs, and hobbies which in the end lead them to being better connected, influencing more people, and holding more soft power for their areas. Progressives simply don't have any equivalent and are less likely to connect with other members of their local community through larger organizations.

Would you say that the division in red and blue churches is also happening in the countryside and smaller towns or is it something you only see in larger cities? I am curious, how do you know if it is a blue or red church if you are new to the area? I tried to Google and imagine my surprised when I found yelp reviews for churches. It is actually even more businesslike then I imagined.

Personally, I don’t like the time investment that I would need to do if I joined local non religious organisations. I don’t mind pitching in now and then if it something I would like to support but to sign up for something every week is not appealing.

Well, having lots of time to waste just hanging out in small local organizations is mostly an old man's game yeah? But usually it's not too difficult to know how a church leans if you're familiar with the church vocabulary. Most denominations lean one way or another, but there are some denominations that also have conservative and liberal branches now. Think about the United Methodist church that officially split this year down LGBTQ lines. The conservatives tend to dig down and defend the line no matter what. Progressives can only sit around for half their life before they realize that the conservatives have no intention of ever moving or changing their opinions.

You can have a split church, but it can't be split forever. Usually this is because Conservatives in churches will demand that things stay the same, but liberals can share their opinions about things. So Liberals stick around thinking that there may be some hope of turning a church around. However, even if Liberals end up convincing 60-70% of a congregation after 15-30 years, they've enabled conservative leadership for those decades who now have enough legacy there to not be overturned, and not enough people care enough to throw a fit. This is the typical old guy who gets to say how everything goes even though most of the group disagrees.

I've seen this many, many times in churches I grew up in (very conservative Churches of Christ). Usually a preacher or elder of the church has an extremely strong opinion that is also mostly unpopular. They strong-arm the decision, 30-40% of the church leaves, the church can then no longer afford the preacher and lay him off, church hires new preacher who is more in line with church. The preacher is better than the last, and the church may recover some of the lost membership, but the most liberal members have likely moved on to somewhere else.

You'd think a church would be able to avoid this, but the combination between most people just aren't willing to stick up for themselves and strong-willed old people causes churches to slowly weed out their most liberal members and also amplifies the echo-chamber effect in churches themselves. 30-40% of the kids I grew up with in church have left it now either to atheism or more liberal churches and that means that there's no one to challenge the most toxic beliefs or even just simply share a different opinion. Churches are becoming big echo chambers, and just like on Facebook, the echo chamber is much, much stronger on the conservative side than the liberal side.