Sorry, I don't know who or what "skydaddy" is.

But, if you wish to pray to it instead of getting vaccinated or going to a hospital, nobody should be allowed to stop you.

Wow, you should go and get that dementia checked asap.

I would love to, but I don't remember the name of my doctor or the street his office is located at.

Individuals have the right to do whatever they want, even if it harms others? It has been a while since I read it, but that viewpoint seems to contradict the entire spirit of the book.

Literally no one will stop you from praying.

They also will not force you to go to a hospital unless you are a danger to others (or yourself in certain situations, but those situations are extremely easy to avoid and do not contradict any religion).

They can (and are morally obligated to, if your actions put other people at risk) disallow you from public and private spaces (that do not belong to you) because that infringes on the rights of other individuals. "But I don't believe that washing my hands after I **** is necessary since I walk with God," does not confer additional rights on the believer.

As a Christian, I have a duty to not harm others.

If I have a contagious disease, I should quarantine myself. And if I refuse to quarantine myself, the state has a right to quarantine me.

However, nobody (including the state) has a right to FORCE me to be vaccinated.

Some high school football teams, et.al. have been prohibited from praying. Me PERSONALLY have never been prohibited from praying.

At the moment, I believe this is still true.

I agree.

Good stuff! Thanks for sharing!

This is my first visit to this sub forum and the first thread is this....

Are you discussing this on some purely theoretical level or on the assumption that the mark of the beast is a real thing? Not that there's any difference there.

Are the scientists who are working hard at developing a vaccine working against Satan's doing? Will they need divine intervention to succeed?

Sounds like a tough job.

Literally no one (in the US at least) is going to force vaccination. By "force" I mean actually force. If you aren't physically held down and vaccinated, then force wasn't used.

Fines do not force vaccinations. Disallowing entry to a public space is not the same as forcing vaccination. Those are all mere inconveniences. If there is any choice at all, then there isn't force.

Football teams aren't people and, as such, do not have the same rights as an individual. Each individual has always been allowed to pray (or not pray, as they see fit) since, unless there have been new developments that I am unaware of, Christians still believe that God can hear you if you pray silently. They also, from what I understand, are permitted by their religion* to avoid playing football if they consider the lack of out-loud group prayer to be in conflict with their beliefs, which makes it a minor inconvenience. The individuals are even allowed to go to a church to sing and dance and yell to God** at the top of their lungs before and after a game or practice if they want to, which makes it a complete non-issue.

*except for in Texas

**or Satan or Buddha or Krishna or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as they choose

This isn't quite true. Individuals are barred from certain forms of praying in a wide range of circumstances. So there are limitations and restrictions to the behavior established by the government. It's more accurate to say that individuals have had a limited ability to pray. The distinction here matters insofar as prayer can be manifested as a corporate act (meaning that a group of people praying together is different from a group of individuals praying separately).

This isn't quite true, either. See the California coronavirus church singing ban. (Not that I'm against that ban. But your statement is false.)

What are these "certain forms" and "wide range of circumstances"?

The only form and singular circumstance that I am aware of is where it is an imposition on others. Well, the ritual slaughter of innocents as an offering is also barred, but I doubt that is what you mean.

There is also a ban on spitting on people in general right now in CA. Haven't checked the news, but I'd be surprised if they are allowing secular sing-alongs. I wouldn't call a rule about silence in libraries a ban on praying or religious singing either.

This is stupidly bad reading of the laws regarding public prayers. I don't even know if I should be taking you seriously.

It's an imposition for me to sit through the recitation of the pledge of allegiance. But there are no rules that forbid that recitation as an agenda item for a public meeting.

Again, I can't tell if you're being intentionally stupid. I'm relatively certain that if someone in a city council meeting started singing the national anthem as the start of a meeting, it would be allowed (even if it were frowned upon). At the minimum, I see no prohibition of that act. See also group recitation of the pledge of allegiance.

He's being intentionally stupid. (In my opinion)

I didn't say anything about all impositions being disallowed. Clearly they are not. Afaict, we were only discussing public prayers.

I don't see a plethora of forms of prayer and circumstances for which prayer is not allowed, unless you are going to count the same sort of thing as different things. I wouldn't count leash laws as being of many different forms because there are loads of breeds and lots of circumstance because a dog could be in a city park or a library.

I'm certainly in favor or removing the pledge of allegiance from public meetings, btw.

I said that I'd be surprised if the new local/state rules/ordinances were specific to religious singing. If they are, then color me surprised.

I wouldn't be surprised if people/groups are flouting the rules/ordinances, or believe they don't apply to them, since I have encountered people.

I also wouldn't be surprised that religious gatherings being impacted by rules were the vast majority of the news coverage. Not many people are going to write about the imposition on people who hold karaoke to be the highest form of art.

I'm wondering whether it is a legal ban, or just a rhetorical device. When I saw it mentioned a week or so ago, it only appeared to be part of a guide, with no legal consequence for not following (I did see lawsuits mentioned, but that doesn't mean they are properly grounded actions).

I suppose Newsom could have enacted executive order, but that didn't seem to be the case.

Only slightly related, but it does seem like the majority of Americans are allowed to pray each day. Technically, the research didn't mention whether they were breaking any laws while doing so.

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/...ess-religious/

The title is funny. Like having an article on ethnicity in the US and titling it "We've more Samoans than ever before."

It was, indeed only part of a guide:

https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-...of-worship.pdf

So, more of a suggestion than a rule.

It's literally the name of a covid related vaccine patent

https://orientalreview.org/2020/04/2...patent-060606/

I can't find the reference now but somewhere it is claimed the name was just due to someone spoofing off and trolling anti-vaxers...