dagblog - Comments for "Supremes Go Full Fundie on Covid"

If God sends a flood, you

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 10:16:00 +0000

If God sends a flood, you build a goddamn ark & set sail - you don't go to church. If he sends locusts, you go bring in the crops as quick as you can, not gather and pray. Moses went up to the mountain and came down and found people gathering and doing all kinds of stupid shit and got pissed and broke the tablets. Nowhere in the New Testament do i see Paul exclaiming "build me a huge motherfucking church so we can exalt together". I see lots of small private meetings of believers. Fuck all these revisionist morons. They don't even follow their own book. "God sends something dreadful" = "drop what you're doing & pay attention", not "oh, God will preserve the status quo for believers". For Passover, did the Jews say, "Oh, I"m not going to mess up the paint on my front door"? That "no one has the right to tell me to kill me a lamb"? Never mind the hardly subtle "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." - one of the earliest "separation of Church and State" proclamations we have, directly in the book Christians supposedly follow - even the New Testament, the one they hate cuz it's too nice and hopeful, but written documenting words supposedly Messiah - "hey, pay your taxes to these earthly folk, just keep up your separate obligations for me as well" - how hard is that? apparently for the Supreme Court pretty blindingly difficult. Meanwhile the effect of these idiot church-going folks on non-church-goers is legion.

yeah it does appear that they

artappraiser — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 06:17:23 +0000

In reply to looks to me like none of

yeah it does appear that they think the football god will smote B117?

Thanks a lot, hope you all stay in Florida....

I have no issue with the

ocean-kat — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:16:02 +0000

In reply to Struck me reading this

I have no issue with the constitution protecting a person's right to believe what ever nonsense tickles their fancy. I have a problem when they expect special privileges in addition to that protection.

looks to me like none of

artappraiser — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:04:06 +0000

In reply to Supremes Go Full Fundie on Covid

looks to me like none of passionate multiracial flock of the Football religion are into wearing masks:

Block parties and tailgates outside Raymond James Stadium as Super Bowl LV kicks off here in Tampa #Tampa #SuperBowl #TampaBay #SuperBowlLV pic.twitter.com/1nKoagFIHR
— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) February 7, 2021

Struck me reading this

artappraiser — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 23:53:21 +0000

In reply to I thought it was clear I

Struck me reading this tearjerker passage, I just know that for some people religion is just like this guy's wife was to him, like they air they breathe

“The lockdown intended to protect that man destroyed his life and made it meaningless.” pic.twitter.com/iSmeSnpCjz
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 7, 2021

I don't have personal sympathy for that attitude about religion, as to me, it's similar to alcohol is the air the alcoholic breathes.

But I know our Constitution meant to afford for loving religion like that, because many people who fought for it risked death coming across the big pond on ships to a wilderness just for freedom to practice an oddball religion, nothing else mattered more to them.

And keeping in mind that it's Congress that's supposed to change the Constitution if they find it outdated, not the Supreme Court.

If you weren't so stubborn,

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:53:00 +0000

In reply to I thought it was clear I

If you weren't so stubborn, you'd see I was supporting importing Othello to Europe where they're not used to such high faluting art, so they'd get some American culture instead of all this musty Greeks-baring-gifs stuff or poppy Eurovision trash. But I still contend, as I gave an example of, that liquor stores can be just as good as churches in both singing opera and spreading Covid, though may need to help them expand both to get the numbers up as well as fit all the attendees on stage and room for an audience. (Though I'm not sure if singalongs are allowed in Opera, it could be a fine addition - "please turn to page 37 of the libretto, and those in the back sing the bass part, those in front tenor or soprano depending on ability")

I thought it was clear I

ocean-kat — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:49:15 +0000

In reply to Well, there is a small liquor

I thought it was clear I thought that the Supreme Court's conservative majority was wrong because liquor stores and grocery stores don't generally set up chairs for people to listen to sermons/lectures or engage in sing alongs. Super spreader events that are common in churches. But you also missed my main and very important point. That opera is great and more people should listen to it and that Otello is one of the best and most easily accessible because it's so melodic with almost no recitative

Well, there is a small liquor

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:37:00 +0000

In reply to We saw this same argument

Well, there is a small liquor store/grocer I pass that has a kind of kaffie klatsch on Friday nights with the locals playing cards & shooting the shit, and I can really see them singing Othello or something similar - though not with coffee, mind you.
But I'm still confused...
[oh, OceanKat spoke 2nd, AA 1st - so *AA* thinks the Supreme Court is right in overriding the state of California and giving megachurches the right to stay open even as business and social gatherings are closed, even though church services are being show to be a major source of infection? And AA thinks that a more liberal court would still support this, even though the 3 liberals on the court voted against (6-3 decision)? Or did I miss an implicit irony emoji?]
ETA - or is this somehow arguing about *how* the need for near-dictatorial powers are sold - e.g. Biden's doing a good job of justifying, but otherwise there's overreach? but again, the Supreme Court just overrode California, which is largely Biden's approach - yes, Jacobsen is too dogmatic in many cases - it's the kind of thinking that got Japanese-Americans thrown into camps during WWII - but with substantive justification it seems perfectly valid. But Gorsuch says no, it's no longer valid case law, while Kavanaugh's coalition doesn't seem to even require real evidence or justification for religious exemptions, just "this is what they want, they shouldn't be denied" sweep of a hand.. Bonkers or a good move?

We saw this same argument

ocean-kat — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:35:38 +0000

In reply to Did you read the thread?

We saw this same argument used with churches and liquor stores. It's so patently ridiculous that it should be rejected out of hand. Liquor stores don't set up chairs where people can sit and listen to a speaker talk about the value of different brands of whiskey. And they don't engage in group singing of 100 bottles of beer on the wall or for the elitist Beva Con Me.

(and yes, I only replied so I could link this song from my favorite opera, Othello by Verdi)

Did you read the thread?

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Feb 2021 21:02:43 +0000

In reply to I think you stress the fundie

Did you read the thread?

think I'm just emphasizing what she does, e.g.

It’s a fringe argument that’s been around for a while: that to be “nondiscriminatory,” laws have to give “most favored nation” status to churches, etc. Unless churches get the best treatment given to any other type of facility, the order is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
— Lindsay Wiley (@ProfLWiley) February 6, 2021

They aren’t providing a lot of helpful guidance, which will paralyze the states, which is probably the goal. E.g., it’s pretty clear they require churches to be treated at least as well as grocery stores. But what about hospitals & fire stations?
— Lindsay Wiley (@ProfLWiley) February 6, 2021