Christian church wins settlement over coronavirus restrictions on worship


null / Photo Spirit/Shutterstock

Kansas City, Mo., Oct 20, 2021 / 18:00 pm (CNA).

A Kansas City-area Baptist megachurch has reached a $150,000 settlement with the county over coronavirus restrictions, with the church claiming that the county treated them more harshly than secular institutions when it came to COVID protocols. 

Abundant Life Baptist Church, which has locations in Lee’s Summit and Blue Springs, Missouri, filed a lawsuit against Jackson County over a year ago, arguing, as places of worship in other states have, that the county’s coronavirus restrictions treated places of worship more harshly than secular institutions such as retail stores. 

Under the terms of the settlement, Jackson County vowed that in exchange for the church dropping the lawsuit, it would ensure that future enforcement measures would not impose stricter requirements on religious organizations than their secular counterparts, the Christian Post reported. 

Jackson is one of Missouri’s largest counties by population, and Abundant Life claims that some 4,500 people generally attend their services. 

When the church filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri during May 2020, the county’s coronavirus restrictions limited church services to no more than 10 people, while stores, restaurants and bars did not have numerical limitations, but rather percentage-based limits, generally 10-25% of capacity.

The church argued that the rules went against both the First Amendment and the Missouri Constitution. 

“If Abundant Life were to engage in retail sales, or served food and liquor as a bar, rather than religious worship at its Lee’s Summit location, Jackson County’s Phase I plan would allow 474 people in the building at a time while meeting or exceeding the CDC’s guidelines,” the lawsuit claims. 

Dan Tarwater, one of the six county legislators who approved the settlement with the church, told the Kansas City Star that they believed they were “going to lose” the case unless they approved the settlement. Equal halves of the settlement will be paid by the county and by University Health, formerly known as Truman Medical Centers, which operates the county health department. 

The Supreme Court had ruled in late November 2020 that New York state restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic constituted a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free religious exercise. After the ruling the Bishop of Brooklyn, whose diocese was a plaintiff in the suit, said that religious worship should be considered an essential during the coronavirus pandemic.

The state’s restrictions at the time forbade the attendance of more than 10 people at religious services in state designated “red zones”, and 25 people in “orange zones.”

“Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue,” the court wrote.

“…even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” the decision concluded.

During February 2021 an unsigned order from the U.S. Supreme Court said that the total ban on indoor worship, which was in effect for most of California at the time, is unconstitutional. At most, the state may limit indoor capacity to 25% of normal, the court said, citing its November ruling in the Brooklyn case. 

The Washington D.C. archdiocese appealed to a district judge in late 2020 over rules that limited houses of worship to 25% capacity, up to a maximum of 250 people inside, regardless of their official capacity. This included the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the largest church in North America, which has a total capacity of around 6,000 people for its upper church.

A subsequent March 2021 court order allowed houses of worship in D.C. to admit as many people inside as they can, in line with other public health regulations such as social-distancing. 

In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that California’s coronavirus restrictions on home-based religious gatherings like Bible studies, worship and prayer meetings were more strict than the constitution allows. Citing an appeals court decision in a different case, the unsigned majority’s court order said the state cannot “assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work.”

The court majority found that comparable secular activities treated “more favorably than at-home religious exercise” under California rules included private suites at sporting events and concerts as well as indoor restaurant dining, where more than three households were allowed to gather.

0Shares

Azerion Acquires Inskin and PubGalaxy to Grow in Europe

As it aims to build an advertising alternative to Google and Facebook, digital entertainment and media platform Azerion has announced the acquisition of digital advertising company Inskin Media and PubGalaxy as it expands its European growth aspirations. The deals are the latest acquisitions to follow the company raising $242 million (200 million Euros) through a…
0Shares

Everything You Need to Know About HTTP vs. HTTPS

What Is HTTP? Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transfers data from a web server to your browser so that it can access and load websites.  You’ve likely already seen it in your browser’s address bar (e.g. http://www.semrush.com) What Is HTTPS? HTTPS is the acronym for Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure. Like HTTP, its main purpose is to… Read More »

0Shares

Duterte to senators: ‘Let’s have a showdown’

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte dared senators to make good its supposed threats to slash the 2022 budgets of government agencies but said this will come at a cost.

In his pre-recorded public address, Duterte said senators were threatening the Cabinet secretaries with their respective agencies’ budget due to their absence in the Senate investigations.

“You threaten the budget of different agencies of the Executive because the officials refuse to attend your hearings. Ito ‘yung mga pang-abuso talaga itong masabi ko sa gobyerno — sa gobyerno ‘pag ka demokrasya, itong separation of powers (This is really an abuse of democracy. This separation of powers), co-equal and everything; and they threatened to paralyze government,” Duterte said.

“Reduce the budget by one third, hinahamon ko kayo, gawain ninyo ‘yan (I challenge you, do it). Mautak man kaya kayo. Eh ako ordinaryo lang, 75. Pero kaya ng utak ninyo, sige (You people are smart. As for me, I’m ordinary, my grade was 75. But if your brains can handle it, go ahead), I challenge you,” he added.

The President even told senators they can totally remove allocation for the Office of the President but said that at the end of the day, everything would still be up for his approval.

“I-zero budget mo ang Office of the President. Sige nga. Bakit aabot ba yang pera ninyo kung hindi magdaan sa akin? Eh kung hindi ako mag-release? (Give the Office of the President zero budget. Come on. Do you think your money will reach you without going through me first? What if I don’t release?),” he said.

“Tit-for-tat. Akala niyo kayo lang marunong (You think you’re the only ones in the know)… Walang takutan, i-direcho mo na (No threats, just do it). Let’s have a showdown,” Duterte added.

The President made the dare after ordering members of his Cabinet not to attend the Senate’s investigations into the government’s Covid-19 response.

Committee chairman Sen. Richard Gordon, who has been at the receiving end of Duterte’s insults, said the President is “violating the Constitution” with the issuance.

Duterte has disapproved of the Senate’s marathon hearings regarding pandemic deals, lamenting the way lawmakers treat resource speakers, including government officials handling the country’s coronavirus response.

“We cannot allow blatant disrespect of resource persons at the ongoing hearing of the Senate blue ribbon committee. Gordon, you are not God and you cannot play God,” Duterte has said.

0Shares

Duterte to senators: ‘Let’s have a showdown’

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte dared senators to make good its supposed threats to slash the 2022 budgets of government agencies but said this will come at a cost.

In his pre-recorded public address, Duterte said senators were threatening the Cabinet secretaries with their respective agencies’ budget due to their absence in the Senate investigations.

“You threaten the budget of different agencies of the Executive because the officials refuse to attend your hearings. Ito ‘yung mga pang-abuso talaga itong masabi ko sa gobyerno — sa gobyerno ‘pag ka demokrasya, itong separation of powers (This is really an abuse of democracy. This separation of powers), co-equal and everything; and they threatened to paralyze government,” Duterte said.

“Reduce the budget by one third, hinahamon ko kayo, gawain ninyo ‘yan (I challenge you, do it). Mautak man kaya kayo. Eh ako ordinaryo lang, 75. Pero kaya ng utak ninyo, sige (You people are smart. As for me, I’m ordinary, my grade was 75. But if your brains can handle it, go ahead), I challenge you,” he added.

The President even told senators they can totally remove allocation for the Office of the President but said that at the end of the day, everything would still be up for his approval.

“I-zero budget mo ang Office of the President. Sige nga. Bakit aabot ba yang pera ninyo kung hindi magdaan sa akin? Eh kung hindi ako mag-release? (Give the Office of the President zero budget. Come on. Do you think your money will reach you without going through me first? What if I don’t release?),” he said.

“Tit-for-tat. Akala niyo kayo lang marunong (You think you’re the only ones in the know)… Walang takutan, i-direcho mo na (No threats, just do it). Let’s have a showdown,” Duterte added.

The President made the dare after ordering members of his Cabinet not to attend the Senate’s investigations into the government’s Covid-19 response.

Committee chairman Sen. Richard Gordon, who has been at the receiving end of Duterte’s insults, said the President is “violating the Constitution” with the issuance.

Duterte has disapproved of the Senate’s marathon hearings regarding pandemic deals, lamenting the way lawmakers treat resource speakers, including government officials handling the country’s coronavirus response.

“We cannot allow blatant disrespect of resource persons at the ongoing hearing of the Senate blue ribbon committee. Gordon, you are not God and you cannot play God,” Duterte has said.

0Shares

Assisted suicide counseling via Zoom an even worse idea, foes tell Scottish lawmakers


Video_Creative / Shutterstock.

Edinburgh, Scotland, Oct 19, 2021 / 18:00 pm (CNA).

Videophone evaluations are no way to assess someone for assisted suicide, critics have said, also warning that cost-based analyses which claim legal assisted suicide saves money show “callous indifference.” 

Some Scottish lawmakers are again advocating the legalization of assisted suicide and have now suggested that online consultations with doctors could help fulfil purported safeguard requirements.

“How can a medic make a decision on the state of mind of an individual on a remote internet connection without being in the physical presence of that person to try and make a measured judgement?” Gordon Macdonald, the chief executive of Care Not Killing, told the Scottish newspaper The Herald.

The legislative consultation for the Proposed Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill has suggested purported safeguards like requiring two doctors to confirm a diagnosis of terminal illness and to confirm the person seeking assisted suicide is mentally competent. The person would have to sign a written request, witnessed and signed by both doctors.

The consultation noted possible difficulties for people “in small and remote communities, including island communities – particularly as travelling is likely to be particularly difficult for people with a terminal illness.” Access to assisting doctors may be more difficult “if the only local doctor declines to assist on grounds of conscience.”

A footnote to this legislative consultation said that research into jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide “shows that assessments can be undertaken via videolink with the doctor and the patient in exceptional circumstances.” It noted that remote assessments have generally become more common due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Macdonald reacted with disbelief to this proposal. Many healthcare experts are “vehemently opposed” to the bill that would allow assisted suicide.

“Legalizing assisted suicide would put immeasurable pressure on vulnerable people including those with disabilities to end their lives prematurely, for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden on others,” he said.

Liam McArthur, a Liberal Democrat MSP from Orkney, is a backer of legal assisted suicide. He said the online consultation proposals “take into account the very real challenges of delivering aspects of healthcare in rural and remote communities,” The Herald reports.

Legalization would “give dying people who are suffering unbearably, more choice at the end of their life and the peace of mind that they do not need to suffer against their will,” he said. The bill would require doctors to outline alternative treatment and care options for someone seeking assisted suicide, McArthur added.

Two previous proposals to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland have failed. The proposal was last debated by the Scottish Parliament in 2015, when it was rejected by 82 votes to 36.

McArthur said there is “strong public support” to change the law. He accused critics of engaging in “scaremongering” and of offering “no real options, precious few safeguards and all too often only dreadful decisions.”

In his view, the proposal for remote consultation for assisted suicide takes into account “the very real challenges of delivering aspects of healthcare in rural and remote communities.” McArthur characterized remote consultations for assisted suicide as a way to “reduce inequalities and barriers to access for individuals.”

He said he wants to “give dying people who are suffering unbearably more choice at the end of their life and the peace of mind that they do not need to suffer against their will.”

The consultation cited Canadian findings which estimated that expanding assisted suicide in Canada would save millions of dollars per year. It would free hospital beds and medical resources for others, advocates said.

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer in an October 2020 report projected that the then-existing assisted suicide law would result in some 6,400 deaths and $66.14 million in U.S. dollars saved. A proposed expansion of legal assisted suicide, later passed in March 2021, would result in $46.8 million in savings in 2021 from about 1,100 more deaths by suicide. The Canadian report noted that this latter figure represented a very small percentage of total provincial health care, about 0.08%.

The Canadian report was written simply as an economic and financial analysis. The authors said the report “should in no way be interpreted as suggesting that (medical aid-in-dying) be used to reduce health care costs.”

However, McArthur has said savings in Scotland from legalizing assisted suicide could be invested in better palliative care.

Macdonald was deeply critical of the cost analysis.

“These are utterly sinister revelations and show a callous indifference for the value of human life,” he told The Times. “We have warned for years about the dangers of assisted suicide legislation and these proposals really do let the cat out of the bag. The ordinary men and women of this country will be astounded by the stark and uncaring reality of such legislation.”

“The emphasis of these brutal proposals is on telling people that they are costing too much to stay alive and would save the country substantial amounts by being put to death,” he said. “To add insult to injury they do not even merit a face-to-face consultation with a doctor who will decide by Zoom or something similar that individuals should be given the go-ahead for assisted suicide and then pop some deadly drugs in the post to enable them to do so.”

Scotland’s Catholic bishops are urging opposition, warning that the government ought to “prevent suicide, not assist it.”

“Over the last eighteen months society has been reoriented to protect the most ill and vulnerable in response to the pandemic,” Anthony Horan, Director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, an agency of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said Sept. 22. “Legalizing assisted suicide moves in the opposite direction.”

The Church of Scotland, an ecclesial community, also opposes assisted suicide.

0Shares

Apple TV+ Invaded Twitch With an Eerie Nosebleed Stunt

What could spark conversation more effectively than a mysterious nosebleed plaguing the internet? Don’t worry, nobody was harmed–it was all just an elaborate stunt by Apple TV+ to kick off the premiere of its new show Invasion, which arrives on the platform later this week. On Oct. 17, some of Twitch’s well-known “Just Chatting” streamers…
0Shares