Pew: Key findings about COVID-19 restrictions that affected religious groups around the world in 2020

How about all the religious groups that were decrying that this was the start of the government taking over? Did the government really hold onto all of those powers, or is the religious freedom back to where it was in 2018 before the pandemic?

It’s probably too early to tell the long-term effects but in some cases the government does appear to have held on to the power. There are still people who lost their jobs because of their religious convictions about vaccines. There are still churches that had to pay fines of various sizes. There are churches who lost their meeting place because they were renting from people who would not rent to them during covid. Right now things are relatively calm but when the next thing comes around what will happen? You simply can’t measure it in the short term.

[Larry]

in some cases the government does appear to have held on to the power.

What are some cases, in your opinion, reflect how the government appears to have held on to power? The items you listed are lingering affects of what took place a year or two ago. I am not seeing the government fining churches today, forcing churches to close or restricting religious gatherings. But I could be missing something.

And individuals losing jobs because of refusing vaccines is not a religious liberty issue.

they are free to make a choice as are their employers.

What are some cases, in your opinion, reflect how the government appears to have held on to power? The items you listed are lingering affects of what took place a year or two ago. I am not seeing the government fining churches today, forcing churches to close or restricting religious gatherings. But I could be missing something.

To my understanding, there are people who have not been given their jobs back because the government continues to hang on to power. To my understanding there are churches that were fined who have not been refunded. To my understanding there are governments who have still not acknowledged they were wrong, even though the courts ruled against them.

But as I said, the real issue is longer term. What will happen next time we have something like this? Right now, it may appear fine becaus there is no pressing issue. It’s like turning the water and claiming there is no leak. Of course not. The water is off. But what happens when you turn the water back on?

And individuals losing jobs because of refusing vaccines is not a religious liberty issue.

If the individual made a religious conscience claim about taking the vaccine, it is a religious liberty issue. I am not sure why, after almost three years, this is still being disputed. I get that you might not have a religious conviction, but you don’t get to enforce that on others. Conscience belongs to the individual, not to anyone else, not to the group, and not to the state. Canada might be different but here, that is not supposed to be legal.

[Larry]

What are some cases, in your opinion, reflect how the government appears to have held on to power? The items you listed are lingering affects of what took place a year or two ago. I am not seeing the government fining churches today, forcing churches to close or restricting religious gatherings. But I could be missing something.

To my understanding, there are people who have not been given their jobs back because the government continues to hang on to power. To my understanding there are churches that were fined who have not been refunded. To my understanding there are governments who have still not acknowledged they were wrong, even though the courts ruled against them.

But as I said, the real issue is longer term. What will happen next time we have something like this? Right now, it may appear fine becaus there is no pressing issue. It’s like turning the water and claiming there is no leak. Of course not. The water is off. But what happens when you turn the water back on?

A government job? A private employer doesn’t have to give you a job back. Practically all state are “at will”. Besides that isn’t continuing to hang on to power, those are the after affects of an action. Not a continuing action. Most fines were local jurisdication fines, not federal government fines. Many won fine refunds in court. I am not aware of any churches that have not been refunded, but typically that is a court matter.

People claimed the government was turning into a tyranny. The same things happend with the Spanish flu, than as that disappeared and so did the restrictions. Everybody was yelling that if we don’t push back the government will remove freedoms. But from what I can tell they were temprorary, driven by a once in a century pandemic and were no more draconian than the Spanish flu.

[Larry]

And individuals losing jobs because of refusing vaccines is not a religious liberty issue.

Conscience belongs to the individual, not to anyone else, not to the group, and not to the state. Canada might be different but here, that is not supposed to be legal.

This sounds great as a tag line, but doesn’t operate this way in a free society. There is always a balance between individual and collective rights. I will take a simple example. My kids could not bring a peanut containing snack to school, nor could they eat a peanut containing snack in school. Two classmates had severe allergies. Purchasing and/or eating a peanut containing snack is not illegal in the United States, that I am aware of. I should have the personal liberty to choose what I put in my body. If I want to eat a peanut containing snack, that is my conscience. The school should not dictate to me that I cannot eat a substance that is perfectly legal to purchase and eat. Yet in reality, not only can they enforce this, but I would argue that we would probably state that it is a compassionate thing, but a “group” (2 other children)’s rights outweigh my rights for a given moment in time. The following year my kids could bring a peanut containing snack to school and could eat it, because there was not a “group” impacted at that time. We could have made a choice to pull our kids out of school and do something else. And that would be a valid choice and our right and we would have been allowed to do that.

If your company enforces a vaccine rule, than you can choose to abide by it or go to another employer. There were plenty that were not enforcing vaccines. I work for a company with 50,000 employees and we were not required to get a vaccine.

[Larry]

And individuals losing jobs because of refusing vaccines is not a religious liberty issue.

If the individual made a religious conscience claim about taking the vaccine, it is a religious liberty issue. I am not sure why, after almost three years, this is still being disputed. I get that you might not have a religious conviction, but you don’t get to enforce that on others. Conscience belongs to the individual, not to anyone else, not to the group, and not to the state. Canada might be different but here, that is not supposed to be legal.

Bible verse for said religious conviction? I’ll wait

I wonder if we have not too quickly forgotten what happened.

In law, typically, an employer cannot fire one for religious convictions. They have to make reasonable accommodations, I believe. To argue this isn’t hanging on to power but rather the after affects of an action is a bit like (to continue with the water analogy) standing in a flooded basement and saying it wasn’t the water leak; it was the after affects of it. Or to put it differently, that is a distinction without a difference.

I am not completely aware of the fines and refunds. Yes, they were not federal government, but the federal government did not create the shutdown. That was state and local I believe. If refunds have been given, then fine.

To say that the same thing happened during the Spanish Flu is hardly helpful. That assumes it was right to do it then. Furthermore, it seems to overlook that many courts (most?) ruled on the side of religion and churches that the government’s reactions were wrongheaded in one or more ways.

There is a balance between collective and individual rights to be sure. But a peanut example really doesn’t help us here. And to my knowledge, no one in your child’s class was making a religious conscience claim were they? Again, I think we are confusing categories.

To restate the main point, we simply do not yet know the long-term effects. IMO, it is foolish that claim that there are none. It might turn out that way, but that is yet to be seen.

Bible verse for said religious conviction? I’ll wait

You won’t have to wait long but give me a paragraph first.

First, notice how you conflate “Bible verse” with “religious conviction.” I know you are Canadian, but in America, religious is not equated to Christian or Bible. It extends to Muslims, Jews, Quakers, etc. So you don’t need a Bible verse to make a religious conviction claim. A Muslim can make a religious conviction claim without a Bible verse. So can a Jew.

Second, the Bible verse that is typically used is a verse like 1 Cor 6:18, that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Historically, particularly in our circles of Christianity, that verse has been used to argue that we should not put certain things in our bodies (such as alcohol, drugs, nicotine, etc.). Many see an unproven vaccine (or a vaccine period) in the same group of things that would endanger or compromise the spiritual ownership of the body. This has almost always been viewed as a reasonable argument for alcohol and drugs and even food (i.e., gluttony). Why all of the sudden vaccines were ruled as out of bounds was a strange one to me.

The nature of Christianity (and religion in general) is that you don’t have to agree with someone’s conscience. You are free not to see vaccines as a legitimate application of that verse. But you do not have the authority to demand someone else’s conscience conform to yours. Biblically, in Romans 14, a person must not violate their conscience. To do would be to sear their conscience, even if it is wound too tight. So it doesn’t matter if you think their application of that verse is wrong. That’s not the way Christianity works and it is not the way religious freedom works.

[Larry]

I wonder if we have not too quickly forgotten what happened.

In law, typically, an employer cannot fire one for religious convictions.

so long as they don’t cause an undue hardship on the company. that is the law. There is no blanket idea that you cannot be fired for your religious convictions. Not sure where people get that idea.

There is no blanket idea that you cannot be fired for your religious convictions. Not sure where people get that idea

Is there a reason you didn’t quote my next sentence?

I never said there is a blanket idea. No one would get that idea from me.

As I said above, employers have to make reasonable accommodations. That language is used along with undue hardship.

[Larry]

Bible verse for said religious conviction? I’ll wait

You won’t have to wait long but give me a paragraph first.

First, notice how you conflate “Bible verse” with “religious conviction.” I know you are Canadian, but in America, religious is not equated to Christian or Bible. It extends to Muslims, Jews, Quakers, etc. So you don’t need a Bible verse to make a religious conviction claim. A Muslim can make a religious conviction claim without a Bible verse. So can a Jew.

So you just say, “that’s against my religious convictions” and you get off scot free? Is that the way it works?

Sort of like the guy who says, “I’m a girl,” so he can then swim on the girls team?

who claim that not getting the COVID vaccine is a “religious belief” is the main reason I didn’t attend live church for 2 years…