Some defiant US churches plan Easter services, ignoring public health guidelines | Hacker News Reader

Some defiant US churches plan Easter services, ignoring public health guidelines

reuters.com

41 pointsanigbrowl104 comments

All: Flamewar of any flavor is off topic here. If the indignation/information ratio of your forthcoming comment is high, please self-isolate until signal/noise returns at least to normal.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Finding the worst crackpots and giving them a platform is not good journalism. Instead, Reuters should be reaching out to the >> 99% of churches that are sane and finding out what they're doing to help people being affected by the virus and recession.

... but interviewing sane people doesn't generate clicks.

South Korea’s initial big spike in cases came from a single superspreader going to a religious gathering. It’s not unreasonable to highlight the potential for that here.

Have you read much about the religious gathering to understand whether it is similar to a normal church service?

I’ve been to enough church services to know they’re a place germs can spread.

I'm not familiar with South Korean church practices, but there is an instance of a choir practice in the US that spread COVID-19 fairly effectively. This suggests that singing, a common practice in US churches (in my experience), spreads the disease. An article on the event reports that the choir members attempted to distance themselves from each other and use hand sanitizer.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/washington-choir-rehearsal-tur...

The members also averaged 63 years old, right in the most likely age group to catch the virus.

Are you under the impression old people don’t go to church? Have you been to a church service?

Yes, many. My point is the chorale group is not representative of all church group demographics. If people can shop safely, they can go to church safely.

Social distancing in a church, given a 6’ distance requirement, 2’ per seat wide, and 3’ from center of one row to the next, would mean that 1/8 of the normal congregation could fit in the chapel. Half are immediately out, because you would need at least every other row empty. In a given row, 1 of 4 seats would be filled, to maintain 6’ between individuals.

On Easter Sunday, churches are full to the point where they have multiple services throughout the day to accommodate everybody. So, while possible, it’s not reasonable to hold an Easter Sunday church service in these times.

Why prohibit all services just because we cannot accomodate everyone?

Perhaps because they're not advocating for letting 1/8th of a congregation in, but all of the congregation.

previous to the complete lockdown MD where I live was restricting congregation size, so a middle road is possible

To stop you and your family from being exposed to the virus.

And potentially my family, if you decide to cough on my groceries after the service. since you think it's safe to shop, congregate in large groups, etc.

very few things in life are entirely safe, e.g. many more people die from traffic accidents than will die from covid-19

The South Korean cult church had tons of people in their 20s, and they got the virus all the same.

Being young just means they don't die easily, but they are quite capable of catching the virus and spreading to others who may die more easily.

that was a mass, tightly packed congregation

Considering how the virus spreads, and how quickly, it makes perfect sense to cover and interview these people. If they were only hurting themselves, then maybe they could be ignored. But they're not. They're putting their families, and communities at risk.

Right. Fine the hell out of them, but don't give them a platform.

That seems unreasonable. "Churches" is an enormous and highly general category. That's analogous to criticising a story on a business doing something controversial or dangerous instead of exclusively interviewing the thousands of businesses doing good.

Maybe they should take a little wisdom from Isaiah (20:26):

> Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.

And Matthew 6:5-6

> 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. 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.

The whole point is to consume communion Easter night, you can't do this at home.

How important is communion in those churches? From what I can see none of them are Anglican, orthodox, or Roman Catholic. They’re all evangelical Protestant.

Can we all agree that even though the freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected right, it is a stupid idea to exercise it during a pandemic?

Personally I think it's a stupid idea to worship in general, but within the context of a believer who believes that God blesses them for good actions and loves them, perhaps they feel like God will protect them. Or if they do die, they'll be rewarded handsomely for being true believers and dying as martyrs.

They obviously haven't considered that maybe they'll be punished in the afterlife for knowingly endangering others for the sake of their own perceived salvation.

I'm not sure why you're speculating. There are plenty of resources online about why they are gathering, if you are actually curious.

No we absolutely cannot. I prefer the American Convention on Human Rights, which states:

The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed not the exercise of this right other than those imposed in comformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others.

I would love to be a dictator ruling over a country whose protected rights were defined so loosely. You would never get me out of power.

Constitutionally protected rights aren't absolute though. And Churches are required to obey all sorts of laws already. Mundane the city can demand that a Church fix their leaking sewer lateral. And red tag their building if they don't.

“...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;”

Ecclesiastes 3:5

The whole of Ecclesiastes is especially good in tough times. The book itself has many stoic qualities. But this part, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, rings so true right now:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Now is the time to refrain from embracing.

Texas still allows churches to meet in size of 50, declaring it an essential service, while abortion clinics have been closed.

Trouble is that singing in a confined space is an excellent recipe for spreading coronavirus. One early hotspot in a rural area, totally unequipped to deal with the scale of the outbreak, was Albany, GA, where someone brought the virus to a funeral service. Dougherty County (~ 90000 inhabitants) is now at 1062 cases, when surrounding counties have maybe 50 or 100 cases. Chambers County (~ 30000 citizens) in Alabama has 168 cases, traceable to a church.

Permitting the God-tempters to carry on is madness. It must be permitted for physicians to say "Fuck off and die, leave civilized society alone".

Entrants in this year's Darwin Awards.

They can have services and still respect social distancing just like the supermarkets. Let's not get crazy here with the authoritarianism.

Then why can't all business just be open and "respect social distancing" as you claim?

I guess next you'll tell me a church is a vital business like a grocery store.

Lowe's and Home Depot are open, Sherwin-Williams paint stores are open, the gun stores are open... People have different views on what is essential, to them, and nationally we don't have any agreement on what is and isn't essential or vital. There are many exceptions. Yes, to many people, their church is a vital service.

Lowes is open because a burst pipe or broken fridge is a critical issue.

Gun stores are open because the NRA threatened to sue and states don’t want the fight right now. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/nra-new-york-gun-sto...

But what could possibly be more important than your immortal soul?

The Bible is pretty clear that private, personal prayer counts, and is even preferable. There’s always Zoom, too.

I'm pretty sure that God doesn't use Zoom!

As for your first sentence: He's never home anyway! I've tried often enough. My new motto is "God helps those who help themselves!"

They probably could be. Policy responses have erred on the side of caution, which is entirely fair, but it's unlikely that clothing stores or bookshops are a significant vector of infection.

This made me laugh out loud. Early this afternoon I walked by a local church on the way to do some shopping and there was a group of 8 or 9 people kneeling in front of it praying. They were holding signs with various slogans, one of which said exactly that: Churches are vital business.

I should mention this is a Catholic church that serves the Eucharist during every mass where multiple people hand out wafers to eat, using their bare hands. [edit: grammar and additions]

Catholicism has a long storied history, so there are provisions for almost everything.

I remember in school learning that if you were on shipwrecked on a desert island, you or anyone else could perform sacraments yourself and they would count just as well as if they were done by a priest.

This is the practice of “spiritual communion”. In modern times, it has most notably been used where a person is sick, or otherwise inaccessible to a priest (e.g. stuck in a mine shaft or on an oil rig or in space). This is currently what the Catholic Pope is promoting.

There is also a happy debate going on about if you can perform sacraments via the internet. There is nothing liturgical about distance to the participant. The rules regarding sacraments are more about intention and who is performing it. Some priest believe that physical presence is always unimportant, but our slow moving Papacy takes a more conservative stance.

On the one hand:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

Through the 14th amendment, this also applies to the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

On the other hand, it is not a suicide pact.

And yet, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a state will be able to defend a blanket prohibition against all religious gatherings of any kind. What if, for example, a church were to assemble and maintain social distancing?

And yet, on the other other hand, it seems like a really bad idea for a church to make a point of exercising their rights at this time.

I Cor 8:11

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

I feel like we have to let the churches do what they want here. They're being totally reckless and people are going to die because of it–but I think the implications of stopping them would be even worse long-term.

What are the worse long-term implications than people dying?

there are plenty of dystopias worse than death

Losing First Amendment rights?

There is absolutely zero long term risk of any such thing. Especially not for Christians in the United States.

Suppose I have a religion where we perform a human sacrifice of a random passerby every year on Easter. Can the state stop this religious practice?

Yes, it's murder.

Is it not also murder to host an event bringing together people who are likely carrying a highly infectitious deadly disease to sit indoors with other people who are likely to die from that disease?

Why do you think that is equivalent?

The right to not be treated worse than others does not give you the right to be treated better than them. If schools, conventions, concerts, etc. are prohibited, so should church gatherings. Freedom of religion (which is what the 14th amendment is basically about) is meant to prevent treating religious groups unfairly. Treating them the same as basically everyone else sounds pretty fair to me...

The 14th amendment is one of the anti slavery amendments.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The free exercise clause is part of the 1st amendment, and means just what it says. The federal government may not infringe on the free exercise of religion.

A concert may look like a religious gathering, but it is not. The legal barrier to prohibiting a religious gathering is far higher, and for good reason - given a simple perusal of history.

The 14th amendment has been interpreted to incorporate the bill of rights (which includes the free exercise clause) into governing the powers of the states as well. This was not necessarily the case prior to the Civil War.

It is true that gathering together is dangerous at this time. It is also true that it is dangerous to allow panicked officials to abridge our rights without due process.

The First Amendment can be abridged under the same conditions as the others: when it serves a compelling governmental interest. This is subject to the strict scrutiny which comes with abridging Constitutional rights; it must be done via the least restrictive means possible, through a rule narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. (In the case of the first amendment specifically, it must also be a viewpoint-neutral rule.)

This is a high bar to clear. It's not clear that all lockdowns clear it. (It's also not clear that, should they fail to clear it, there will be any effective remedy in the courts, because of qualified immunity.)

Exactly right. A blanket abridgement probably isn't reasonable, especially when many businesses remain open with appropriate safeguards in place.

If you’re in the religious media silos, you’ve seen a steady stream of police chasing people out of church parking lots, trying to “gather” safely — listening to the preacher on low power FM, in separate cars with the windows up.

Which is no more dangerous than the crowded lots at grocery stores or food banks, or factories, or other “essential” operations.

If it makes no health difference the government can’t privilege food-motivated parking over worship-motivated parking. It’s just penny-ante authoritarianism.

You die with no food.

You do not die missing a Sunday service or a few.

You do not die from the virus by parking in a lot, all things being equal.

And if you don’t die physically from parking in a lot, government can’t tell someone their interest in parking for the spiritual Bread of Life is categorically less important than a desire to ease acquisition of Hot Pockets and Cocoa Puffs.

If the lot is unreasonably dangerous when parking, they can mandate grocery delivery.

Yes, but the Sunday service provides nourishment for your soul, which they may decide is more valuable than life itself. Are you going to say they are wrong? Well, you're welcome to say that, and I'd happen to agree with you in practice, but our jurisprudence does not allow us to make that decision for others.

Thus there is a strong case that, to the extent to which the government stops these services, it cannot be because they say that this is not essential. Rather, it must be because the measures stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, and that no narrower measures would suffice.

(And if you did want to actually make Sunday services happen, you'd be well served by devising narrow measures that do suffice.)

As a Pastafarian, it is interesting to me that folks are justifying their behavior based on delusional historical beliefs. I am now brainstorming how the Satanists might reply to this; they are keen to examine poor Christian behavior and satirize it [0][1][2][3].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_School_Satan

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Baphomet

[2] https://protectchildrenproject.com/

[3] https://apnews.com/6addf2f0ecb646919cb1cfcfdacfc6c1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com