Unconstitutional

However, if a church tells its members that only those who are healthy may assemble, and also take suitable precautions, while those who have symptoms should self-quarantine and stay home, that should be more than enough to be responsible citizens.

What we are seeing right now is more than just the protection of healthy people. We are seeing the destruction of economies and the restriction of liberties. And the coronavirus is similar to flu in its overall impact, while there are now drug combinations which have been proven to be effective against the infection.

Christians should understand that the people on the Task Force who should have been very careful and very responsible in their statements have been deliberately misleading the American public in a calculated attempt to destroy America (including attacks on effective drugs). Bill Gates has no business calling for a total shut down when no one called for a total shut down during flu epidemics.

That's the problem, it might be possible to transmit the virus after a person has been infected but before they become symptomatic.

Except you can be asymptomatic and spread to others. The rest of your comment I can't comment on because I don't know much of American law. I would say in certain situations gov't can do these things. But I can't speak to that.

Actually, they were not children but grown men.

Pardon me, what a bad mistake! They were God's children.

Still, to those not familiar with Daniel, they might think that they were actually children. Throwing children in a fiery furnace seems more grim and evil then throwing 3 grown men in. Yes, those 3 men were God's children.

It sounds more like a clusterflick blooming to me.
I would say somebody is going to profit of this pandemic.

The 2 trillion dollar virus aid stimulus aid would amount to $ 6,000 for every man, woman and child of the 329 million citizens of the U.S. However, the package only pays $1200 for individual and $500 for kids.

But at 1,200 for ever one of the 329 million people that would come to 394.8 billion dollars. However, not everyone is going to get a stimulus check, those with children won't be getting $1,200 per child, so the 394 billion is a gross over estimation of the actual amount which will be actually be dispersed to individuals under this stimulus package.

But even with that 394 billlion the addition 500 Billion going to distressed corporations only totals 894 Billion of the 2 trillion. So that leaves 1.3 trillion dollars going to hospitals and unemployment benefits?

Do you actually think the legal system works?

Correct. Once again, the ones who genuinely need help will not get it, and the ones who are fat and greedy will benefit the most. For millions to go to the Kennedy Center or for sunscreen is to make a mockery of this relief effort. And President Trump should have vetoed this bill and exposed the politicizing of misery. Also, if the help was to really help, money should have gone out within 48 hours if a work force was properly mobilized for an emergency effort.

Above and beyond that, billionaire Bill Gates was conspiring behind the scenes to bring America to its knees, while encouraging China (and probably investing in Chinese state-controlled companies). He has been pushing for a total shutdown, while his surrogates (bought and paid for) Drs. Birx and Fauci have been fear-mongering with their phony IHME projections while failing to promote the drugs which have been found effective against this Wuhan virus. What is truly amazing is that Mr. Trump has allowed these medical hacks to have a platform, when their connections to Bill Gates are known.

Now they are backtracking and saying they overestimated everything. How come these people have not been fired?

Further details revealed by the Daily Caller on the Coronavirus Stimulus Bill are quite shocking and in keeping with the agenda of Pelosi, who should have been impeached by the Republicans rather than allowed to control this bill:

Kennedy Center for Performing Arts (a non-essential) -- $25 million

Sunscreen mentioned throughout (a non-essential) -- not specified but probably at least a million

Postal service bailout -- a so-called loan of 10 billion which will probably never be repaid

Cash for Congress (a non-essential) -- 25 million which should have been turned around and made a fine against the Democrat Party for the enormous waste of time and resources in trying to take down Trump for 3 years. Plus all the billions which were actually spent wastefully by the Congress and Senate during that time.

There is probably a lot more that is hidden away and should be thoroughly investigated.

Moses what in my comment did you disagree with?! Nothing. You're marking an x just to be disagreeable. Stop or you'll be reported. That is not what the x is for. smh

He would win except that the judge will not up hold the constitution. He will get his day in court.

Part of the problem here is that they are not being told you can't assemble completely. Groups are limited to ten, and then there is what many churches have done and cyber assemble. Then there is what the church I will visit this Sunday is doing. The pastor is meeting with the whole church online and allowing family groups to come and meet with him out side for communion. So there are ways to do this correctly. This Florida pastor may or may not have been out of line. I think we should at least attempt to operate with in the law as much as possible.

In the home, is not enough for them, now they want to come for you in the home.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zOvS1nEa3oQm/

No, I'm not marking an x just to be disagreeable. When people make statements that are clearly wrong, or without providing any proof, I don't think there's anything in the rules against marking that I disagree. If there is a rule that prohibits this, then certainly, I won't do it. But the x mark is there for people to mark posts that they disagree with, is it not? I find your threatening to report me just for showing that I disagree with your opinion very disagreeable, however, and I marked that I also disagree with this statement, because I don't believe there is any such rule against marking with an x posts that one disagrees with.

This is the statement I disagreed with. Prove it, if it is true. The statement is simply not true, and a parroting of what unscientific propagandists may hypothesise on television, to keep up the fear-mongering.

I think the pastor who put his people and his families at risk should not get away scott free..

and I am not sure if he would win, But I would hope not. to teach other leaders a lesson

But surely first it should be proved that the pastor was indeed putting his people and his families at risk, should it not? It's easy to claim there is a virus. Much harder to prove that there is one, and that it can be spread via church.

just look around the country.

Any court of law would agree that it is putting your people in danger, If one person in that congregation had that virus, chances are, many of the congregation would be infected. How many people would have had to die before we determined he put his congregation at risk?

I wonder if the threat of a virus would have kept Paul down?

Prove it's the virus and not the 5G towers. Because the proof of what the risk actually is changes who is the one putting them at risk, does it not? If the risk is a virus, the pastor may have had a role to play. If the risk was caused by a change in the Earth's electric field brought on by 5G radiation, the pastor had nothing to do with it (but someone else did).