Trump classifies houses of worship as essential

If only your explanation had anything at all to do with his claim

I don’t agree with his claim,

Actually kind of. We want to avoid the type of government that decides religion or religious gatherings “endangers public health” Some Churches do not vaccinate, some do not seek certain medical services, some handle snakes, some pray over people who have illness and seek care. Some hold hands and touch even the most diseased and poor of society. And starting int he 1960s and 70s our own Church in the USA has held that we should drink from a communal cup. We have done this through pandemics. Viruses, etc. We hold that we can tell our members not to use condoms during a pandemic of AIDS etc. The Bishops have authority to dispense of the obligation, close parishes etc. Pastors and leaders of faith groups from all denominations and religions have the right to freely express thier religion. Not as a freedom to enjoy when it is safe and when the governor permits. But rather when people deem it necessary and when they deem it their right.
The President of the United States of America did not say St Woebegones parish on the corner of 13th and 13th MUST open. The President of the United States only says that it is their right to choose to worship as they see fit. The same with the mosques, and temples and Churches all over.
This pandemic has exposed a disease of it’s own. The seizure of power by those who may or may not have the power. People have said on this thread Does the president have the power? The question is do the governors have the power to take a limited amount of information and ban worship? We have freely given that power up even while making the argument that they may not have it. We have chosen to let it play out. Governors have banned protests, Worship, etc. And we accept, perhaps arguing it on the next election. They may not “have the power” to act as they have in all aspects. The point is that they have any power we give them. So they do indeed have the power. Do Bishops have the power to ban communion on the tongue? No. But they do. Do governments have the power to say big corporations like taco bell can serve food and make money and Ma’s Diner can’t? No. But they do.

Religion, much like guns has a special protection in the history and foundation of our country. All though history governments dictated religion. Who could practice what. For 300 years (longer than our country has existed) The entire Church was murdered if they practiced the faith. Then, governments who shared our faith persecuted others who did not agree with the Church. etc.

This was supposed to be different. When Plymouth rock was landed on, when the colonists sought freedom from a religious monarchy, , when the constitution was drafted. When tea was spilled, when blood followed the tea. When a bomb was dropped. This was supposed to be different.

it isnt.

1 Like

No governor has banned worship.


This is yet another attempt to divide people. This time faith is the wedge.
As a Catholic, my Church and it’s Bishop’s have kept services closed because we value our neighbor.
Trump also seperates Catholics from Protestants.


You assume that President Trump believes in polls like all good Americans…

He quotes them often, and has his polls done by his campaign.
But I don’t know what you might mean by “beleives in polls”.


I assume he believes in creating wedge issues and percieves them in his self interest. The GRANDSTANDING about challenging governor’s is just that.

1 Like

His remarks almost always start a fire storm that lasts one/two weeks of the news cycle. Accuse/rebut/research/report

Actually it’s impossible to ban “worship” as private prayer. Many persecutions and emperors in the past found this out. But some governors have indeed banned worship as a public gathering or expression. If you wish I can say governors have banned gathering to worship.

1 Like

Have all Catholic Bishops done this?

In other words, religious freedoms trump all other freedoms, including the freedom to breathe. Let me ask you, if a church demanded parishioners drive 80mph at all times, do you feel a governor would be violating religious freedoms to order state troopers to charge said parishioners when they’re caught speeding? Where in your view do religious liberties end up restricting other liberties? Or do religious liberties well and truly take precedence even over public health and lives?

There’s a sense of entitlement here and an utter lack of charity of love for your fellow man that makes me think your version of religious freedom is the antithesis of Christ’s message.


Nobody is being denied the right to breathe. Churches should enjoy the same freedom as Taco Bell, Walmart, a liquor store or a gun shop.
What you say would have merit if people were forced to go to Church. And even then the right to breathe would be hyperbole. But that isn’t what we are talking about is it?

1 Like

If large gatherings are banned and any facility that opens is required to maintain physical distancing, then no one is being picked on. I object to the notion that religious liberties trump other liberties.

Seattle enacted similar bans during the 1918 Pandemic and weathered it far better than many other North American cities, and no one’s religious liberties were wiped out.

My opinion is that there are some very entitled people who are behaving like spoiled children, and using their faith once again as a means to threaten the wider society into accepting that they are allowed to do anything they want.


I hope hat you agree that this comment is off-topic.

It would be more precise to say simply that there have been bans on public indoor gatherings of certain numbers, densities, and durations. That can include some kinds of gatherings associated with some kinds worship. But worship was not banned, liturgy was not banned, and, as least in my state, some level fo practice in churches continued through the lockdown.

They do AFAIK. The rules that applied to gatherings, at lest in my state, also applied to retail, food, liquor, and gun shops. It was not permitted to gather a dense group in place for an extended time in any of these establishments.

That is your opinion. Readers can make their own opinions on the Presisents motives, and they can form their own opinions on your intense bias against the president by your voluminous anti-Trump postings here.


I think the motives are clear. In recent weeks there have been hints that cracks may be appearing in his base, particularly amongst Evangelicals, so, he needs to shore that up by once again ringing the age old bell that dark forces are out to destroy Christianity. This despite the fact that it’s clear most mainline churches have followed public health recommendations, and in some cases are behaving far more responsibly than some other organizations.

But that won’t get Trump re elected. An imaginary war on religious freedoms might, though.

1 Like

In reality, they can form opinions on what can be inferred from voluminous postings critical of Trump. Some of those opinions will be logical, some will be charitable, some will be polite.

All that I have heard about. I don’t know about “all”

The county I mentioned above where a church held a Mother’s Day service in violation of state public health orders had 22 confirmed cases of coronavirus two weeks ago on Mother’s Day. The number if cases had been at 22 for a week or more. Now, two weeks later, that county has 34 cases, at least one of the new cases having been confirmed to also be a member of that church. That’s a pretty dramatic 55% increase. According to the news, the county health officer said on Friday that officials have seen a “pretty dramatic increase in cases,” which he called “disturbing news.” There were seven cases in the last few days alone. How many if any of those are tied to that church besides the one new case has not been reported. But if that church service turns out to be responsible for this big increase, should that church still have been allowed to hold it?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit