Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
and do you agree that groups of people should be able to do this based on religious beliefs?
|
No. It's a reckless and myopic response. The argument is basically that the divine mandate for Christians to congregate takes precedence over State imperatives to isolate. Durbin makes the case that local church authorities should be free to make this decision for themselves, unfettered from government involvement. He thinks that it's probably wise for some churches to shut down temporarily, but then also suggests that a good number of others in more remote locations, or without incidents of infection can and should continue to gather, so long as they are observing rules of social distancing. It's stupid, because the entire strategy behind clamping down on large gatherings is precisely an effort to reduce or eliminate the spread, and to attempt to contain the outbreak. This approach of churches deciding for themselves whether or not this is a legitimate directive essentially flies in the face of that.
Durbin also asserts this idea elsewhere that the biblically proscribed function of government is restricted to matters of national and civil defense, and the promotion of justice. This is effectively what undergirds some Christian positions on matters of gun ownership/control, health care, and social programmes. The sense being that these are not within the purview of governments, and it is thus an illegitimate extension of government control beyond their proper jurisdiction. It is through views such as these that Christians can attempt to maintain a commitment to the well-being of their neighbours and society at large, while simultaneously insisting that programmes like universal single-payer health care, a regulated economy, and restrictions on firearms are somehow antithetical to God's plan.
It's bizarre, but if believers such as Durbin can maintain a strong stance on God's sovereignty, such inconsistencies are weirdly tolerated without much of a second thought.