Monday, July 27, 2020

AD Robles responds to 9Marks's Jonathan Leeman about John MacArthur

While recently I've mentioned how I believe MacArthur's position in March will be used against him now that his position in July is to resist the unconstitutional demands of California, I do want to make clear that MacArthur's current position is the correct one.  For that reason, I want to highlight a response to the rather weak post Jonathan Leeman wrote for 9Marks criticizing MacArthur's latest stand against Californian overreach.  AD Robles does a good job of going over the main issues here:



The only thing I would add that is not in the video is just how flimsy I found Leeman's article to be.  By that, I mean that Leeman seemed to be trying to please every side while simultaneously trying to take a position against MacArthur, so it ends up being a real mash of chaos in the end.  The basic gist of Leeman's point appears to be, "MacArthur shouldn't have done that, but, I mean, I guess it's private judgment if you want to do it--but you shouldn't want to--but if you do it's okay, except that it's not."

Also, while Robles did mention this, I want to echo one of the more problematic arenas of Leeman's post.  Leeman said: "I personally wonder if defying government orders for the sake of a pandemic is the most judicious opportunity to exercise those muscles. The politics of LGBT tells me our churches may have more occasions to defy government requirements in years to come. Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?"  Robles spent a good deal of time critiquing the aspect of "capital" that Leeman references, so I won't belabor that point here.  I would merely add: "The politics of evangelical churches tells me that most of our churches won't bother to defy government requirements regarding LGBT issues, should they arise, given how many churches are more than happy to capitulate to them now."

So to conclude, while I did disagree with MacArthur's views in March, his current position should be defended, even against the rather weak and mostly incoherent attack Leeman gave.

36 comments:

  1. Yeah, on top of everything else, Leeman is uninformed: It is, in fact, *already* against the governor's orders to meet in small groups in houses if these involve people from multiple households. He presents that as a legal alternative. He's just wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. I haven't fully examined all of California's restrictions yet, given that I'm in Colorado and we're dealing with our own governor locking everything back down again too, so I've been more focused on our local laws.

      Delete
    2. *Laughs, slightly concerned, in yeehaw*

      Delete
  2. It's good to see JMac/GCC have a change of heart.

    At the same time, I wonder if the same people who criticized Steve back in March this year will have a change of heart now that JMac/GCC are on board the civil disobedience train (e.g. here, here)? Or would they criticize JMac/GCC's present position (perhaps in favor of their original position)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hawk--

    I still think the whole thing is silly. I have thought the whole thing was silly all along. I don't mind the restrictions. I think that, basically, they have been reasonable. In most cases, I don't think that they have been specifically directed at the church (but because it is one more institution with large gatherings).

    I think we should fight the government from the very start of the very first glimmer of tyranny. I just don't agree that this is it. (It may be in certain circumstances. The Nevada ruling by SCOTUS looks egregiously unconstitutional.) It's not really that I think we should be "picking our battles" as such. But I do think that the battles we pick should actually BE battles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But I do think that the battles we pick should actually BE battles."

      I guess I take the view that this we are already in the midst of a battle or in fact war. And that this is a battle.

      However I'm from a blue state, whereas I think you've mentioned you're from a red state, so perhaps these circumstances significantly color our views. Not sure.

      Delete
  4. It could be. I don't think you could even make me live in a blue state. How depressing! Plus, I could never raise my kids in such an environment.

    Just because we live in a state of war doesn't make every inconvenience a battle. The MLB and the NBA are playing without fans. I highly doubt it's because the government hates sports. Pennsylvania wouldn't let the Blue Jays play in Pittsburgh. So they had to settle for Buffalo. But the culture war had nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I say, I think it's more "battle" than mere "inconvenience". But that may be because conservatives including conservative Christians in blue states feel more tinged by the dragon's flame than those in red states.

      Delete
    2. Are you sure, Hawk? Is there really an outright skirmish going on in the Forsaken Places? Are you positive there's bloodshed?

      It just seems like such a god-given opportunity for Evangelicals to lead the way in being a compassionate neighbor during trying times. We get a chance to "love our enemies" by sacrificing some of our usual conveniences for the good of the team, for the good of the country we say we love so patriotically.

      Instead, we have ended up squealing like stuck pigs...because our precious "rights" have been violated and our oh, so sensitive feelings have been butt hurt.

      It doesn't look like warfare from a distance. But maybe up close and personal it's an entirely different story. Maybe you're pulling gory casualties off incoming helicopters as fast as you can lift them and triaging them for surgery in makeshift MASH units at the edge of burgeoning refugee camps. I'll have to take your word for it.

      Delete
    3. "Are you sure, Hawk? Is there really an outright skirmish going on in the Forsaken Places? Are you positive there's bloodshed?"

      1. Hm, well, you were the one who first raised "battle" imagery in this comments section. I assumed you were using "battle" figuratively. So I was just following your lead on this.

      2. Figuratively speaking, even the Supreme Court recognizes there's a "battle". That's presupposed in Gorsuch's recent dissent for example.

      3. However, if you're referring to literal bloodshed, there have been "skirmishes" like all the riots. There have been people killed.

      "It just seems like such a god-given opportunity for Evangelicals to lead the way in being a compassionate neighbor during trying times. We get a chance to 'love our enemies' by sacrificing some of our usual conveniences for the good of the team, for the good of the country we say we love so patriotically."

      1. I think the majority of evangelicals have been quite compassionate during these trying times. Perhaps a minority haven't been, and arguably they're the ones the mainstream media focuses on, but my impression is the majority have been doing just fine with compassion here. Of course, one could say there's always room for improvement. Still, if anything, I'd lay the blame for lack of neighbor-love elsewhere.

      2. I don't have a problem with sacrificing "conveniences" like (say) wearing masks and social distancing if that's what you're referring to, but there should be a consistent standard. Not a double standard.

      "Instead, we have ended up squealing like stuck pigs...because our precious "rights" have been violated and our oh, so sensitive feelings have been butt hurt."

      1. I think statements like "squealing like stuck pigs" and "butt hurt" are closer to caricature than reality. There's good reason Christians (and not only Christians) are legitimately concerned about the violation of our rights. For example, should Christians be required to limit our gatherings while casinos aren't? You may not agree with this, but several justices of the Supreme Court think so, so it at least shows it's not an insignificant concern like it's just our "oh, so sensitive feelings have been butt hurt".

      "This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen 'multiplex' may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel." (Source)

      2. We could multiply examples. Like should people (including Christians) be required to kneel before BLM or else face public denunciation, humiliation, threats to their livelihoods, etc.?

      "It doesn't look like warfare from a distance. But maybe up close and personal it's an entirely different story. Maybe you're pulling gory casualties off incoming helicopters as fast as you can lift them and triaging them for surgery in makeshift MASH units at the edge of burgeoning refugee camps. I'll have to take your word for it."

      It seems like you're just being sarcastic now.

      Delete
    4. Just to add $0.02:

      "It just seems like such a god-given opportunity for Evangelicals to lead the way in being a compassionate neighbor during trying times. We get a chance to 'love our enemies' by sacrificing some of our usual conveniences for the good of the team, for the good of the country we say we love so patriotically."

      When I read this, I wondered if that's how the church in Germany felt in 1933 when they decided not to oppose the ramping up of Hitler's policies. Not to say that it's identical with what's happening now, but when the Constitution is being shredded (primarily by Democrat lawmakers, but not even being opposed by the Republicans) and the ability of the average American to do average American things has been turned into a shaming tactic against those who would insist on maintaining our rights, the slippery slope is definitely upon us. Where does it end? Germany went from the Weimar Republic to Nazism to all out World War in less than ten years. Things change quickly. And atheists do not look kindly upon the Christians who were alive in Germany during that time who never resisted (never mind that literally NO ONE resisted).

      The time to fight for your rights is as soon as they are restricted. A right you don't defend is a right you don't have. And even if you don't feel it is an inconvenience to give up a right today, you don't know when you're going to need that right in the future. Once it's surrendered, you won't have it back. Having surrendered your rights early, by what basis will you be able to insist upon them when it becomes necessary to resist more fully?

      Delete
    5. Gentlemen--

      We're talking past each other here. I was being metaphorical for goodness' sake. Just making a distinction between real and imagined battles.

      I made it clear that when a "level playing field" has been breached, as in Nevada, we have a legitimate beef. I'm not against fighting back at the first hint of persecution. I do not believe that our job is to willingly lay down and get stomped on, not in a democracy at any rate.

      But just because we are being daily assaulted and insulted doesn't mean we should see EVERYTHING as offensive. There ARE many Evangelicals who are overreacting. For the most part, none of us are being beaten or jailed or even fined. We can worship freely via Zoom, and no one storms our houses to detain us. What exact freedoms are being seriously curtailed? Outsiders make fun of our claims of persecution...and with good reason. We're not particularly adept at "counting it all joy."

      The fact of the matter is that indoor worship sites are absolutely wonderful spaces to spread the virus. Loud shouts of praise and singing spray spittle everywhere. Poor ventilation and circulated air may help spread it, as well. My family and I won't be darkening a church door for some time to come.

      We Evangelicals should welcome reasonable restrictions not balk at every turn. Maybe you're not worried for your own family but you could stop and worry about others. We shouldn't care so much about never neglecting to assemble together that we put the lives of countless senior citizens and other immuno-compromised individuals at risk. Where's the Christian charity in that?

      Delete
    6. "But just because we are being daily assaulted and insulted doesn't mean we should see EVERYTHING as offensive. There ARE many Evangelicals who are overreacting. For the most part, none of us are being beaten or jailed or even fined. We can worship freely via Zoom, and no one storms our houses to detain us. What exact freedoms are being seriously curtailed? Outsiders make fun of our claims of persecution...and with good reason. We're not particularly adept at "counting it all joy.""

      I mean, if the issue is just that people are overreacting, then that's hardly limited to evangelical Christians.

      "The fact of the matter is that indoor worship sites are absolutely wonderful spaces to spread the virus. Loud shouts of praise and singing spray spittle everywhere. Poor ventilation and circulated air may help spread it, as well. My family and I won't be darkening a church door for some time to come. We Evangelicals should welcome reasonable restrictions not balk at every turn. Maybe you're not worried for your own family but you could stop and worry about others. We shouldn't care so much about never neglecting to assemble together that we put the lives of countless senior citizens and other immuno-compromised individuals at risk. Where's the Christian charity in that?"

      Once again, one of the main issues for me is the double standard. That was well illustrated in the Nevada case.

      Also, as Lydia McGrew points out in her comment above, this is occurring in some places: "It is, in fact, *already* against the governor's orders to meet in small groups in houses if these involve people from multiple households."

      And you should really drop the tsk tsk-ing and attempts at emotional manipulation (e.g. "Maybe you're not worried for your own family but you could stop and worry about others"). That makes it difficult to take you seriously. Like you said, where's the Christian charity in that?

      Delete
    7. "We shouldn't care so much about never neglecting to assemble together that we put the lives of countless senior citizens and other immuno-compromised individuals at risk."

      1. I'm fine with reasonable restrictions, as such, but again there's a double standard. As I've already noted, the state of Nevada operates with a double standard against churches when it doesn't do so with casinos. Yet senior citizens can likewise be infected with SARS-2/COVID at casinos. So why the double standard?

      Also, why the double standard when it comes to protests? It's clear there's not been as much outcry against protestors (who have the right to protest) when it's obvious they're doing anything but socially distancing from one another as there is against Christians attending churches?

      And so on and so forth.

      2. I'm more than willing to protect our senior citizens and others at greater risk. But does that mean we have to make the decision for senior citizens? Like they're children despite being 65+ years old and perfectly capable adults? (I'm referring to the average 65 year old, not those with, say, a form of dementia.)

      It's not as if senior citizens are typically without personal agency. They can make their own decisions. They can go out or stay at home. That includes the decision to attend church or not attend church. If they don't wish to be at risk, then they can self-isolate at home.

      However, there are some or many senior citizens (including those at my church) who have stated they would be willing to take on the risk in order to meet with friends, family members, others. They don't wish to be alone. That's their decision. We don't have the right to take that away from them. Why not allow them to meet in smaller groups with other senior citizens for example? Yet, as Lydia points out, it's "against the governor's orders to meet in small groups in houses if these involve people from multiple households."

      Delete
    8. Eric wrote:
      ---
      The fact of the matter is that indoor worship sites are absolutely wonderful spaces to spread the virus. Loud shouts of praise and singing spray spittle everywhere. Poor ventilation and circulated air may help spread it, as well. My family and I won't be darkening a church door for some time to come.
      ---

      For the record, I'm making the same choice. But I stand here on a matter of principal. I'm all for the government *suggesting* that we limit certain things, but I oppose the government *ordering* us to do so. And that opposition comes even before the freedom of religion is taken into account. A government that *orders* us to do such things is the nanny state/helicopter parent who is treating us as if we are children. It's demeaning to be treated as such by the government. As a political libertarian, it is against my nature to submit to fake parents when I already have real parents.

      That said, I know there are some stupid people who need to be restrained by law. I can set that aside, except when it comes into direct conflict with the Constitution, as happens to be the case when the state tries to dictate what a church can and cannot do. It's very odd indeed that separation of church and state ONLY applies to the church not being able to dictate to the state what laws should be passed, but the state can do whatever they like to the church. That's not what the First Amendment was written for, and I stand opposed to that 100% of the time.

      But again, just because I oppose the state dictating such things does NOT mean I oppose the state offering GOOD REASONS for why certain behaviors should be curtailed, nor do I engage in risky behaviors just because it's my right to do so. None of what the government has done to churches would be problematic if they presented it as suggestions for what to do to best curtail COVID instead of demanding obedience when it's not their role to do so.

      Delete
  5. Hawk--

    1. I've already stated multiple times that I'm against the double standards. If the casinos are open, Nevada has no business closing the churches.

    Now, outdoor protests are not technically matchable to indoor assemblies (though BLM protests and anti-lockdown protests are).

    2. In terms of senior citizens and other vulnerable folks, I'm not talking about their own decisions. There is no such thing as complete self-isolation. Seniors must get out for groceries and prescriptions and doctor's appointments and other odds and ends. To the extent that the less vulnerable go their merry way and spread the virus, their elders become more and more vulnerable. During a pandemic, one truly is his brother's keeper. Your own reckless actions endanger other people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1. I've already stated multiple times that I'm against the double standards. If the casinos are open, Nevada has no business closing the churches."

      Yet it was at odds with your original position.

      "There is no such thing as complete self-isolation. Seniors must get out for groceries and prescriptions and doctor's appointments and other odds and ends."

      I never said there's such a thing as "complete" self-isolation. It should be obvious I'm responding to seniors voluntarily self-isolating in the context of attending or not attending church.

      "To the extent that the less vulnerable go their merry way and spread the virus, their elders become more and more vulnerable."

      In fact, my position is perfectly consistent with Christians not gathering in a public church and Christians meeting entirely at home via Zoom (for example). That'd be voluntary and as such I'd have no issue with that. As Peter has pointed out, there's a huge difference between, say, the state mandating churches not to assemble vs. the state suggesting and encouraging churches not to assemble. That's something conservative physicians and public health officials have pointed out as well (e.g. Scott Gottlieb).

      "During a pandemic, one truly is his brother's keeper."

      Christians are our "brother's keeper" at all times, not just pandemics.

      "Your own reckless actions endanger other people's lives."

      I don't know why you keep acting like you're the one who cares more about other people's lives than we do. My guess is it makes you feel more moral than others. It's a form of psychological or emotional manipulation. You're just attempting to guilt-trip others.

      Delete
  6. Peter--

    I'm a little confused by one thing you said. What did you mean by saying that the government has the power to restrain "stupid people" but not if it conflicts with their constitutional rights? Don't ALL of the current restrictions violate our general rights to peaceably assemble? I mean, isn't that the point of most pandemic restrictions? Government employing powers in an emergency that it wouldn't normally have?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric asked:
      ---
      What did you mean by saying that the government has the power to restrain "stupid people" but not if it conflicts with their constitutional rights?
      ---

      What I said was: "That said, I know there are some stupid people who need to be restrained by law. I can set that aside, except when it comes into direct conflict with the Constitution, as happens to be the case when the state tries to dictate what a church can and cannot do." This was said in the context of "A government that *orders* us to do such things is the nanny state/helicopter parent who is treating us as if we are children."

      So yes, I'm acknowledging that there are stupid people who do stupid things and that some of that behavior should be limited by law, but NOT when it violates the Constitution. For example, if someone wants to stand on top of a cliff and throw rocks off the side of it, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids him from doing so, nor is there anything in the Constitution that permits him to do so. The state can say, "You are not permitted to do so" even without providing a reason, such as potentially hitting other people or killing wildlife, and I would accept that as a potentially reasonable law in as far as it doesn't violate Constitutional rights and keeps people from engaging in stupid behaviors.

      But to focus it on COVID specifically, while I have in general in this thread been pointing out the religious aspect (given the OP is about GCC/JMac), it is true that most of the pandemic restrictions also violate the Constitution's guarantee of freedom to peaceably assemble, as you mentioned. But not everything required due to the pandemic falls into that category. Mask mandates, to pick another example, don't do so. I think they're dumb because masks are a placebo to make you think you've lowered your risk of contracting COVID when the only way you can guarantee you won't catch it is by strict social distancing. The only problem I have with the mask mandates in my state are that they are enacted by executive order, and the executive branch is not permitted via the Constitution to create laws--that's why we have the legislative branch. In fact, had the legislature passed this as a law back in March, or in any of the following months LIKE THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION SAYS THEY SHOULD DO, I would have no problem with it at all. It would not violate the freedom of assembly right we have, and it would have been passed via Constitutional means. Instead, we have a dictator who just declared it to be something we must do now. That's the only reason I oppose it.

      Delete
    2. Peter--

      You're quite right that we are currently being governed by executive order and judicial decree rather than by our democratically elected legislatures. But legislatures are not normally allowed to pass laws that curtail our first-amendment rights either. We are endowed with those rights by our Creator. They are supposed to be sacrosanct. They can, however, be very temporarily eclipsed by national emergencies. Like this one.

      If they keep the restrictions in place much longer, I will join you in spirited protest.

      Delete
  7. Hawk--

    I should mention that I'm deeply conflicted.

    On the one hand, I'm in favor of reopening society--commerce, education, even recreation--fairly wide open. Let's get the economy back on track, alleviate depression, and develop herd immunity.

    On the other hand, if we do that, people are not going to be careful, and there are going to be quite a few extra, needless deaths.

    I'm seeing some schools being cautious, going slow, and accommodating the vulnerable: homebounding kids from multi-generational homes, allowing older teachers to Zoom in, and alternating days of attendance in order to keep classroom occupancy to a minimum. Other schools are going full speed ahead and not showing compassion (or common sense, for that matter).

    My regular church is meeting together face to face, but outdoors, socially distanced, and masked. They'll be back indoors in a couple of weeks most likely. I have no idea when I'll go back. Zooming in for now. I think most churches will make fairly wise decisions if left to their own devices. But some churches won't. MacArthur's church probably won't.

    What SHOULD we do with those churches that are just plain mad at government bureaucrats and are out to "show them a thing or two"? They're going to end up putting a lot of people in danger by overreacting to the restrictions.

    I haven't heard of any churches being seriously hurt, in terms of losing members or finances, though I could be wrong. Churches are not going to be shuttered for good. I seriously doubt the restrictions last much longer. The SJW's/Neo-Marxists/Identitarians will probably just keep brainwashing our youth and watch the churches slowly die.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hawk--

    1. My original contention was that Evangelicals were griping about restrictions even when no double standards were evident. I don't think that's even debatable.

    2. Most of the mandates have been left more-or-less unenforced on the theory that the mere appearance of force of law will create greater compliance. In general, I think that's been correct.

    We can defund the police, and most people will remain law abiding. I don't happen to think that makes it a good idea.

    3. No one is trying to claim the high moral ground. I don't even know the best way to proceed. I just think a knee-jerk reaction to governmental pandemic restrictions is shortsighted. Non-pandemic restrictions on freedoms of religion and speech are far more troubling than these passing quarantines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of things to sift through and sort out and deal with here. I’ll have to reply later. For now, I’ll just point out a complication is that it’s not unreasonable for conservatives to suspect that progressives are using so-called temporary pandemic restrictions to undermine freedom of religion and other rights. There’s no virtue in being naive.

      Delete
    2. Hoping you note my comment as well...
      But, as to Eric:
      Double Standards? So riots don't count?

      People will remain law abiding? Notice the uptick in murder and robbery in the most populated cities.

      So you do not think this sets a bad precedent for the government to shut down everything at a whim?

      Delete
    3. Trent--

      1. Have riots occurred in every state that has imposed restrictions? If not, have Evangelicals remained dutifully compliant in those states? I have heard a lot of complaining--even about things as simple and unburdensome as face masks--that didn't sound tied in any way to double standards.

      2. I shouldn't have included that line. It requires a lot of explanation. People in general will remain law abiding even without law enforcement. Society as a whole, however, will disintegrate. I was reflecting on the notion of governmental suggestions for voluntary action. Good people will follow the suggestions. Everybody else will follow their muse.

      3. I wasn't aware any government had shut things down on a whim. I was under the impression we were in the middle of a pandemic.

      Delete
  9. You're right. I'm sure they're using them at the very least to promote political agendas. But some of their hypocrisy/inconsistency is just their general inhumanity. It's not directed against Christians. For example, I tend to think their turning a blind eye to the problem of protests during a pandemic was straightforward nepotism. Their own sons and daughters and nieces and nephews were out there in the streets.

    Are they out to destroy us? Oh, yeah. Will they do do it overtly? Towards the end, perhaps. When they've already crushed our spirit. They didn't need a revolution to effect a nationwide change on LGBT issues. They're doing the same thing now with critical race theory. A pogrom against the church would just force us underground. They would rather slowly poison us till those who remain lie around, emaciated and wheezing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric

    Forgive me, because I'm genuinely trying to understand your position, but your own position seems muddled, hence why I'm attempting to clarify with you. Here's how I understand your position, but please correct me if I'm mistaken about your position. As best as I can tell:

    1. Your main criticism seems to be that evangelical Christians in general are overreacting regarding the pandemic restrictions. First, I'm still not sure how you can necessarily equate Christian concern and objection over the restriction of rights with overreaction. Just because a group is concerned about something doesn't necessarily mean they are overreacting.

    Also, a subset of evangelical Christians may indeed be overreacting, so I'd agree with you if this is all you mean, but I don't know that evangelical Christians in general are overreacting. It seems to be a hasty generalization to me if you mean to say evangelical Christians in general are overreacting.

    2. By pandemic restrictions, I presume you're referring to mask wearing, social distancing, and especially church attendance (among others). So you believe these pandemic restrictions are justifiable because emergency police powers exercised by the state are justifiable. And you believe evangelical Christians ought to comply because evangelical Christians ought always to obey the state in a national emergency or crisis. If so, then this would seem to be a principled objection on your part.

    3. At the same time, you say: "If they keep the restrictions in place much longer, I will join you in spirited protest." However, if you believe the state is justified to exercise emergency police powers and that Christians ought always to obey the state in a national emergency or crisis, then why is there a time limit on this (i.e. "If they keep the restrictions in place much longer...")? Shouldn't your position commit you to the fact that Christians ought always to obey the state for as long as the national emergency or crisis lasts, even if it's indefinite? So if it lasts 10 years, then your principled position would seem to commit Christians to obeying for 10 years, for example. Yet here you seem to move away from a principled objection to a different kind of objection inasmuch as you do seem to think there's a limitation on the time period (even if the limitation isn't strictly defined). So what's the basis for this move if it's no longer a principled objection?

    4. By the way, yes, we can both agree that the state isn't necessarily always targeting evangelical Christians alone and that evangelical Christians aren't the only ones affected by the restrictions. After all, both you and I have already stated as much to one another. However, in certain states like Nevada, it does seem the state is unjustly discriminating against churches. That's what the dissenting Supreme Court justices themselves have concluded. For instance, I already quoted Gorsuch's dissent above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5. Originally you said: "I think we should fight the government from the very start of the very first glimmer of tyranny. I just don't agree that this is it. (It may be in certain circumstances. The Nevada ruling by SCOTUS looks egregiously unconstitutional.)" Presumably you don't think this is tyranny because you believe the state is justified to exercise emergency police powers. Yet you agree the Nevada ruling does look "egregiously unconstitutional". Now, if an "egregiously unconstitutional" event can occur in Nevada, then it could occur elsewhere in the US. If so, then I don't see how it's "overreacting" for evangelical Christians to be concerned about this possibility, which does not seem far-fetched, especially in the context of what leftists want to do and have done so far in our nation. At the very least, it's not entirely unreasonable that evangelical Christians are concerned about tyranny if by tyranny we can include unjust discrimination against a particular group(s).

      The Nevada ruling isn't the only disconcerting example of unjust discrimination against churches. Another disconcerting example is Mayor Bill de Blasio in NYC threatening he'd permamently close down any church in violation of NYC's restrictions.

      Also, in NY, another church was warned its pastor could face a $1,000 fine for holding a drive-in church service with 23 worshipers in 18 different vehicles. Despite the fact that such drive-in church services wouldn't seem to be in violation of social distancing or large gathering restrictions.

      Not to mention local police in Greenville, Mississippi fined attendees at a drive-in church service $500 each for purported violations even though they permitted citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants. Again, this looks like unjust discrimination against churches. In fact, this resulted in the Dept. of Justice itself needing to intervene on behalf of the church.

      The Church of the Word in Fenton, Missouri ended up having to sue St. Louis County because St. Louis County limited in-person worship to 25% capacity while secular businesses are allowed 100% capacity. This too suggests there's unjust discrimination against churches.

      I think these examples should suffice to make the point that it does look like there's unjust discrimination against the churches, which, if so, it would not be unreasonable for evangelical Christians (and other groups) to be concerned.

      6. Finally, we can debate where the lines should be drawn, but even emergency police powers have their limitations in our system of government. As Justice Alito points out in his dissent: "We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility."

      Likewise, Attorney General William Barr has said: "But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers."

      Delete
  11. Hawk--

    Thanks for the thoughtful and thoroughly reasoned replies. Yes, in the middle of the conversation, I found myself slightly at odds with...myself. (Perhaps you missed my "conflicted" comment.)

    1. I think restrictions need to be implemented without any double standards. Nevada should change, but probably by putting the casinos back under restrictions.

    2. I think certain communities have gotten overzealous. You mention Greenville, Fenton, and NYC. I took these instances to be localized, power-hungry idiots rather than an indication of widespread prejudice. I would love to hear how such authorities have justified their glaring hypocrisy, their complete lack of evenhandedness. Have you heard any attempts?

    3. Yes, I think that, in the absence of double standards, Christians ought willingly to comply for a season, for a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the crisis. (Basically, for the amount of time it takes for the situation to stabilize.) In this pandemic, that would seem to be for the initial time it takes to "flatten the curve" so that medical facilities are not overwhelmed, and perhaps for a few subsequent spikes. I do not think it should extend into whatever the "new normal" ends up looking like. Perhaps, in the event of all-out world war, it could extend for some considerable time. I don't have an exact formula in mind. Does that somehow make me unprincipled? Crises can be convoluted, many-layered conundrums.

    I believe in fighting specific instances of legal bigotry. I believe in fighting back against clearcut, widespread prejudice and persecution. I have seen the former during this crisis. I have not seen the latter.

    4. I do believe Evangelicals have a right to be concerned with the direction this nation is heading. I fear for the lot my kids will have in life if things don't turn around. I just don't happen to believe the present church closings are part of that. I really don't. If we had put Evangelicals in charge of every branch and every level of government during this crisis, churches would have been shuttered temporarily.

    Many, many churches are already reopening. There's no deep, dark government conspiracy to keep us closed. Not at this point. It's a moment to demonstrate good citizenship. Not a moment to take to the streets in protest.

    That time may well come. If it does, I will be with you all, shoulder to shoulder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just briefly:

      1. Good (genuinely) to see you move closer to our position. Good (genuinely) to see you drop the more outlandish rhetoric.

      2. You say "in the absence of double standards", but that's precisely what's not the case - not prima facie. On the face of things, there does seem to be quite a lot of evidence of double standards. As such, your dilemma remains: on the one hand you say Christians should comply if there aren't any double standards, but on the other hand there are double standards so presumably this means Christians shouldn't comply.

      3. You can say "certain communities have gotten overzealous" and these are "localized, power-hungry idiots rather than an indication of widespread prejudice". However, first, would you characterize the BLM protests the same way since they only took place in "certain communities"? Second, even isolated instances of "power-hungry idiots" can spread, if they're not dealt with. And that's one reason why it's important for people (including Christians) in these and other communities to be concerned and even to resist "power-hungry idiots". In this respect, Christians and others aren't "overreacting", but reacting as they ought by resisting "power-hungry idiots".

      4. I'm not saying you're "unprincipled". Rather I'm saying your original argument seemed to be based on a principle, viz. the state is justified to exercise emergency police powers and Christians ought always to obey the state in a national emergency or crisis. However, it seems to me you've moved from an argument based on a principle to a different kind of an argument because you seem willing to forego or bend the principle "If they keep the restrictions in place much longer, I will join you in spirited protest". If you're willing to forego or bend the principle, then other Christians could argue to do the same. If so, it may be licit for Christians and others not to always obey the state in a national emergency or crisis.

      5. Like I've pointed out multiple times now, I'm fine with reasonable restrictions, but that's precisely the issue at debate, i.e., whether the restrictions have been reasonable or not, whether certain groups have been unjustly discriminated against or not, etc.

      6. I certainly haven't ever said or implied anything about a "deep, dark government conspiracy to keep us closed". I've been citing specific cases that are quite public.

      Delete
    2. "It's a moment to demonstrate good citizenship. Not a moment to take to the streets in protest."

      By the way, there's no necessary conflict between being a good citizen and taking to the streets in protest. Not in our nation. In fact, as Americans, we have the right to protest. That's protected by the Constitution. And sometimes or oftentimes it is precisely because we are good citizens that we take to the streets to protest.

      That's what the BLM protestors believe about their movement. If they can protest and be considered good American citizens, then why couldn't Christians and others if we believe we have a legitimate reason to protest?

      And sitting idly by, keeping our mouths shut, or doing nothing can sometimes be the wrong thing to do too.

      Delete
  12. Hawk--

    From the get-go, many groups have felt unfairly singled out. Lots of businesses thought that they, too, should be considered "essential." There is no way to announce restrictions and have every entity under the sun consider those restrictions evenhanded.

    At this point, I don't think we Evangelicals have much of anything to be sore about. You do. Knock yourself out and hit the protest trail. I'll join you when I feel the situation warrants it.

    I happen to think my rhetoric was more florid than outlandish. I don't think I changed my message much, just pared down the metaphor. I'll try to remember to keep things simpler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hawk-- From the get-go, many groups have felt unfairly singled out. Lots of businesses thought that they, too, should be considered "essential." There is no way to announce restrictions and have every entity under the sun consider those restrictions evenhanded."

      Of course, one's feelings may or may not match reality. I cited specific cases where Christians were unjustly discriminated against. And it's not solely my opinion, but the opinion of several Supreme Court justices, the Attorney General, etc.

      Also, if other groups believe they've been unjustly discriminated against (e.g. Jewish synagogues), then they're well within their purview to ask for redress.

      "At this point, I don't think we Evangelicals have much of anything to be sore about. You do. Knock yourself out and hit the protest trail. I'll join you when I feel the situation warrants it."

      I don't know why you think I or other evangelicals are "sore". You have a bad habit of illicitly imputing emotions onto others. For example, it's quite possible for a person or group to be concerned and seek remedy for legitimate grievances without being "sore".

      Anyway I don't see how this is responsive to what I've said. You're not arguing in good faith. Again, you're just illicitly imputing emotions onto others. It makes me wonder if you're projecting.

      "I happen to think my rhetoric was more florid than outlandish. I don't think I changed my message much, just pared down the metaphor. I'll try to remember to keep things simpler."

      Here's a sample of your previous rhetoric in this very thread (and it's unfortunate you seem to have taken up this kind of rhetoric again):

      "Your own reckless actions endanger other people's lives."

      "Instead, we have ended up squealing like stuck pigs...because our precious "rights" have been violated and our oh, so sensitive feelings have been butt hurt."

      "Maybe you're not worried for your own family but you could stop and worry about others."

      Delete
    2. By the way, I actually meant to pay you a compliment by saying it's good you dropped the outlandish rhetoric, which is why I put "genuinely" in parentheses. However I realize I wrote that badly so it was probably misconstrued. So I apologize to you for that. But originally I did genuinely mean it as a good thing.

      Delete
  13. Hawk--

    This is the problem with the internet...or maybe even regional dialect differences. For me, "sore" is a pretty bland word that can cover mild upset or even simple concern. A couple of my quotes were employing the generic "you." They weren't directed at you personally, but at some of the more egregious examples of thoughtless behavior and/or rhetoric in the Evangelical community. "Stuck pigs" is a tad hyperbolic but still a fairly accurate description of some of the Evangelical voices I have heard.

    You have accused me of bad faith argument, of manipulation, and of "imputing emotions" onto others. I understand how you might say so, but none of these things are true. The internet requires us to give each other the benefit of the doubt... and to bathe that benefit in buckets of grace. It is incredibly easy to misinterpret disembodied voices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I'll have to take your word for it because otherwise it does sound like you're making bad faith arguments, emoting, and so on (e.g. I don't see how it loses force to apply the plural "you" rather than the singular "you", I'm not sure language like "butt hurt" is fair to say about other evangelicals). Nevertheless I appreciate the spirit of your present words.

      Of course, the more pertinent matter is the reasonableness/unreasonableness of arguments for/against our positions. We can overlook the polemics, but we shouldn't overlook the reasons and reasoning in response to one another.

      Delete