Replies

The aspect that is not discussed very much is the reason for freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

People gather to worship God because they believe in His power. Presumably that would include the power to heal and protect the faithful. The secular world evidently does not believe this is a real thing so they think that a church gathering is just like any other gathering of people in a store or a tavern, restaurant or sporting event.

The state should butt out of religious freedom altogether. If these people are wrong about their beliefs, so be it, not for anyone else but themselves to judge.

Now having said that, in court you would hear this sort of argument: “Religious groups do not have a right to endanger the health of the community.” In theory, if it were known that a religious group had some terrorist agenda and were advancing that agenda in their meetings, then that would be a pretext for the state to enter their premises and prevent further meetings. We have seen in the past how the state has walked on eggshells on that matter, and not gone into all sorts of meeting places (in particular mosques and Sikh temples) where such activities were suspected.

Yet if grandpa gets a cold, in they go with all the power of the state. It makes no sense, the spread of COVID is probably not influenced by even a second decimal percentage because of a few church gatherings. I was just at a Walmart in BC, and surely there was more risk there than I would face at this church gathering. By the way, BC has a more overtly globalist-socialist type of government but the population has a strong libertarian streak and the government here has taken a bit more care on this particular issue, they have pressured churches to close, but their campaigns have been (so far) played out in the courts with cases going up to the Supreme Court (provincial) recently.

The Alberta government on other issues has taken conservative stands, for example, to protect their embattled resource industries. It surprises me that Premier Kenney would not personally step into this and make sure there was no forceful closures. It shows that even in his relatively right of center administration, the globalist presence is strong and powerful, and able to dictate policy.

That’s what this whole business is about, in my view, a chance for globalism to become a one-party state form of government, no exceptions, no choices, just the command and control that they admire in their Chinese (exempt from consequences) partners.