thestream--2020-05-28--The Unacceptably Unjust Death of George Floyd

The tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer has circulated all over social media .
It is exceptionally difficult to watch .
The facts leading up to what the video captures have been recounted by numerous media outlets .
Minneapolis police officers arrived Monday evening to arrest Floyd , 46 , on suspicion that he had committed forgery .
Police said the officers ordered him out of his car , but he physically resisted them .
By the time a bystander begins to record the video , Floyd is handcuffed , face down on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is driving a knee into Floyd ’ s neck with what often appears to be his full body weight .
For roughly a minute , Floyd shouts that he can ’ t breathe and that the officer is hurting him .
Then , Floyd is suddenly silent .
His body goes limp .
He clearly has lost consciousness and it appears he may no longer be breathing .
But Chauvin continues using his knee to apply pressure to Floyd ’ s neck for several more minutes — minutes that feel like an eternity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handcuffed , unconscious man .
He does not .
Other officers on the scene do not attempt to assist either Chauvin or the distressed Floyd , but instead try to block bystanders ’ view .
Chauvin calls for medical assistance , but still shoves his knee onto Floyd ’ s neck .
Floyd eventually was taken into an ambulance .
He was pronounced dead just “ a short time later , ” according to news reports .
It is , of course , possible that the officer ’ s knee had nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consciousness and eventual death .
Perhaps a coroner ’ s report will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Floyd had been poisoned , suffered from a congenital defect , or otherwise would have died at that exact moment regardless of the officer ’ s actions .
But , absent such a report , the video tells a damning story of a causal relationship between Chauvin ’ s knee on Floyd ’ s neck , Floyd ’ s loss of consciousness , and Floyd ’ s death .
The Minneapolis Police Department fired Chauvin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their actions the day before .
This was , without a doubt , the correct call .
The only remaining question , legally speaking , is whether Chauvin will face criminal charges , as Floyd ’ s family has demanded .
He should .
Justice demands it , even if Floyd ’ s family had not .
Minnesota law clearly lays out the situations in which a peace officer may use certain levels of force , including deadly force .
Ample evidence shows that this officer used deadly force in a context that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority he possessed , and that his actions therefore were the equivalent of second-degree murder under Minnesota law .
At the very least , this is a question that should be brought before a jury .
Let ’ s break this down a bit further .
At first glance , this would seem to be straightforward .
If George Floyd died because of the force applied by Officer Derek Chauvin , the officer ’ s action quite literally was “ deadly ” force .
Minnesota law , however , is more technical than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly force in this instance would occur only if Chauvin intended or should have reasonably known that the pressure from his knee would be substantially likely to cause Floyd serious injury or death .
The Minneapolis Police Department ’ s internal use-of-force guidelines classify certain types of “ neck restraint ” as nonlethal force .
Chauvin likely didn ’ t use this neck restraint with the “ purpose ” of causing death or great bodily harm .
And because of his training , it initially may have been reasonable for him to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk for Floyd .
However , Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has stated that Chauvin ’ s actions did not reflect a department-approved neck restraint .
Many other use-of-force experts also have criticized the officer ’ s technique .
Moreover , the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that body parts — such as hands or knees — can be used to apply “ deadly force ” in certain circumstances , such as when they are used to choke someone .
Most importantly , whatever argument Chauvin may have first had for using a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he initially may have had to believe Floyd wasn ’ t really in distress as he called out , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” it all went out the window the moment Floyd went limp and clearly lost consciousness .
At this point , a reasonable officer has to recognize that the neck restraint is , in fact , causing serious injury .
He has to think to himself , “ Maybe I should stop crushing this man ’ s neck with my knee.
” The moment in which a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraint was causing serious injury , that neck restraint became deadly force that must be justified under the law .
It ’ s hard to see how , at the moment the use of the knee restraint turned into the use of deadly force , any of the justifications outlined by the relevant statute applied .
Floyd had been arrested for a nonviolent offense and was unarmed .
And whatever resistance Floyd may have initially offered , he was handcuffed and unconscious for several minutes while Chauvin continued to apply pressure to Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A man who is handcuffed and unconscious almost certainly is not a threat of causing great bodily harm , either to the officer or to the public .
He no longer is attempting to flee or commit a felony .
He is , for all intents and purposes , completely subdued .
Deadly force is no longer justified , assuming it ever was .
What , then , is the appropriate criminal charge to take before a jury ?
Minnesota , like most other states , requires an element of intent for first-degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretch to suggest that Chauvin intended to cause Floyd ’ s death .
Similarly , third-degree murder is likely off the table .
Even though it might seem applicable as the unintentional killing of another person “ by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind , without regard to human life , ” the Minnesota Supreme Court has clarified that third-degree murder “ can not occur where the defendant ’ s actions were focused on a specific person.
” We are left , then , with second-degree murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge .
In Minnesota , this offense occurs when a person unintentionally causes a death while committing a felony offense .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Arguably , Chauvin committed the felony offense of assault , as his use of force was not authorized or justified under state law .
Floyd died as a result of this unjustified assault , even if the officer did not intend to kill him .
Keep in mind , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges under federal law for civil rights violations , and the FBI is conducting its own investigation alongside state authorities .
Because Floyd ultimately died , a conviction under these federal statutes would carry equally significant penalties as a conviction for second-degree murder under state law .
Law enforcement officers have incredibly difficult jobs and generally deserve the benefit of the doubt .
Society often fails to fully appreciate the challenges and complexities faced by police officers on a daily basis .
Even the most mundane calls can turn deadly in , quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We owe these public servants more than jumping to quick conclusions or second-guessing their every move .
But sometimes , an officer ’ s actions are so grotesque , cruel , or mind-boggling that the benefit of the doubt no longer can be extended .
Sometimes , it isn ’ t a matter of “ waiting for more information , ” because no additional information ever could justify what the public has witnessed .
The death of George Floyd was simply injustice .
And we must not tolerate it .
Amy Swearer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation .

The tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer has circulated all over social media. It is exceptionally difficult to watch.
The facts leading up to what the video captures have been recounted by numerous media outlets.
Minneapolis police officers arrived Monday evening to arrest Floyd, 46, on suspicion that he had committed forgery. Police said the officers ordered him out of his car, but he physically resisted them.
By the time a bystander begins to record the video, Floyd is handcuffed, face down on the asphalt, and Officer Derek Chauvin is driving a knee into Floyd’s neck with what often appears to be his full body weight.
For roughly a minute, Floyd shouts that he can’t breathe and that the officer is hurting him. Then, Floyd is suddenly silent. His body goes limp. He clearly has lost consciousness and it appears he may no longer be breathing.
But Chauvin continues using his knee to apply pressure to Floyd’s neck for several more minutes — minutes that feel like an eternity when watching them tick by for a handcuffed, unconscious man.
The only remaining question, legally speaking, is whether Chauvin will face criminal charges, as Floyd’s family has demanded. He should. Justice demands it, even if Floyd’s family had not.
Increasingly panicked onlookers beg the officer to relent.
He does not.
Other officers on the scene do not attempt to assist either Chauvin or the distressed Floyd, but instead try to block bystanders’ view.
Chauvin calls for medical assistance, but still shoves his knee onto Floyd’s neck.
Floyd eventually was taken into an ambulance. He was pronounced dead just “a short time later,” according to news reports.
It is, of course, possible that the officer’s knee had nothing to do with Floyd’s loss of consciousness and eventual death. Perhaps a coroner’s report will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Floyd had been poisoned, suffered from a congenital defect, or otherwise would have died at that exact moment regardless of the officer’s actions.
But, absent such a report, the video tells a damning story of a causal relationship between Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, Floyd’s loss of consciousness, and Floyd’s death.
The Minneapolis Police Department fired Chauvin and three other officers Tuesday because of their actions the day before. This was, without a doubt, the correct call.
The only remaining question, legally speaking, is whether Chauvin will face criminal charges, as Floyd’s family has demanded.
He should. Justice demands it, even if Floyd’s family had not.
Minnesota law clearly lays out the situations in which a peace officer may use certain levels of force, including deadly force.
Ample evidence shows that this officer used deadly force in a context that fell outside the scope of any lawful authority he possessed, and that his actions therefore were the equivalent of second-degree murder under Minnesota law. At the very least, this is a question that should be brought before a jury.
Let’s break this down a bit further.
Officer’s Use of Deadly Force
At first glance, this would seem to be straightforward. If George Floyd died because of the force applied by Officer Derek Chauvin, the officer’s action quite literally was “deadly” force.
Minnesota law, however, is more technical than this.
Under the relevant statute, deadly force in this instance would occur only if Chauvin intended or should have reasonably known that the pressure from his knee would be substantially likely to cause Floyd serious injury or death.
The Minneapolis Police Department’s internal use-of-force guidelines classify certain types of “neck restraint” as nonlethal force. Chauvin likely didn’t use this neck restraint with the “purpose” of causing death or great bodily harm. And because of his training, it initially may have been reasonable for him to believe the action did not create a substantial risk for Floyd.
However, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has stated that Chauvin’s actions did not reflect a department-approved neck restraint. Many other use-of-force experts also have criticized the officer’s technique.
Moreover, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that body parts — such as hands or knees — can be used to apply “deadly force” in certain circumstances, such as when they are used to choke someone.
Most importantly, whatever argument Chauvin may have first had for using a less-than-ideal technique on Floyd, whatever reason he initially may have had to believe Floyd wasn’t really in distress as he called out, “I can’t breathe,” it all went out the window the moment Floyd went limp and clearly lost consciousness.
At this point, a reasonable officer has to recognize that the neck restraint is, in fact, causing serious injury. He has to think to himself, “Maybe I should stop crushing this man’s neck with my knee.”
Continued Deadly Force Not Justified
The moment in which a reasonable officer would have understood a neck restraint was causing serious injury, that neck restraint became deadly force that must be justified under the law.
It’s hard to see how, at the moment the use of the knee restraint turned into the use of deadly force, any of the justifications outlined by the relevant statute applied.
Floyd had been arrested for a nonviolent offense and was unarmed. And whatever resistance Floyd may have initially offered, he was handcuffed and unconscious for several minutes while Chauvin continued to apply pressure to Floyd’s neck with his knee.
A man who is handcuffed and unconscious almost certainly is not a threat of causing great bodily harm, either to the officer or to the public. … Deadly force is no longer justified, assuming it ever was.
A man who is handcuffed and unconscious almost certainly is not a threat of causing great bodily harm, either to the officer or to the public. He no longer is attempting to flee or commit a felony. He is, for all intents and purposes, completely subdued.
Deadly force is no longer justified, assuming it ever was.
This Was Second-Degree Murder
What, then, is the appropriate criminal charge to take before a jury?
Minnesota, like most other states, requires an element of intent for first-degree murder. It likely would be a stretch to suggest that Chauvin intended to cause Floyd’s death.
Similarly, third-degree murder is likely off the table. Even though it might seem applicable as the unintentional killing of another person “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard to human life,” the Minnesota Supreme Court has clarified that third-degree murder “cannot occur where the defendant’s actions were focused on a specific person.”
We are left, then, with second-degree murder, which appears to be an appropriate charge. In Minnesota, this offense occurs when a person unintentionally causes a death while committing a felony offense.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Arguably, Chauvin committed the felony offense of assault, as his use of force was not authorized or justified under state law. Floyd died as a result of this unjustified assault, even if the officer did not intend to kill him.
Keep in mind, too, that Chauvin also could face criminal charges under federal law for civil rights violations, and the FBI is conducting its own investigation alongside state authorities.
Because Floyd ultimately died, a conviction under these federal statutes would carry equally significant penalties as a conviction for second-degree murder under state law.
Injustice Is Injustice. Period.
Law enforcement officers have incredibly difficult jobs and generally deserve the benefit of the doubt. Society often fails to fully appreciate the challenges and complexities faced by police officers on a daily basis. Even the most mundane calls can turn deadly in, quite literally, the blink of an eye.
The death of George Floyd was simply injustice. And we must not tolerate it.
We owe these public servants more than jumping to quick conclusions or second-guessing their every move.
But sometimes, an officer’s actions are so grotesque, cruel, or mind-boggling that the benefit of the doubt no longer can be extended. Sometimes, it isn’t a matter of “waiting for more information,” because no additional information ever could justify what the public has witnessed.
The death of George Floyd was simply injustice.
And we must not tolerate it.
Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


thestream--2020-05-28--And the Banned Played On — Calgary Churches Forbidden to Speak Truth

Sit .
Stay .
Don ’ t speak !
Lie down .
Now roll over .
Aw , who ’ s a good church ?
You ’ re a good church !
Yes , you are .
So said the City Council of Calgary to its churches — and indeed , to believers in general — when it voted Monday , unanimously , to ban so-called “ Conversion Therapy.
” Calgary citizens in defiance will now face a $ 10,000 fine , a year in prison , or both .
What the Left achieves in Canada today shows what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why Christians in the States should carefully note three aspects of this story : the definition of “ Conversion Therapy , ” the punishments faced by people found guilty of practicing it , and the impact these bans will unquestionably have on churches .
First , the definition .
The ban describes Conversion Therapy as “ a practice , treatment or service designed to change , repress or discourage a person ’ s sexual orientation , gender identity or gender expression or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making extravagant promises to “ cure ” all homosexual temptations .
It also prohibits a counselor from helping someone change their behavior , even if that behavior conflicts with their conscience .
Never mind what the person seeking counsel wants or believes as a Christian , an Orthodox Jew , a Muslim , or a Mormon .
Religion be damned .
Sit down , don ’ t speak , roll over .
Then there ’ s the consequences laws like this will have on private , profound decisions .
On that point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Serling .
Imagine , if you will , an adult male who ’ s spent years identifying as gay , sexually active with men , but now feeling a change of heart about homosexuality based on his religious convictions .
Imagine him seeking out a Christian counselor with a belief system compatible with his own .
Then imagine him saying , “ I ’ ve been having relations with men , but I no longer feel right about that in light of what I believe as a Christian .
Please help me live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith.
” Now imagine the counselor saying , “ I could lose $ 10,000 plus one year of freedom if I do what you ask.
” In 1984 I was that man asking for help , and thank God , it was legal .
I am also that counselor , 36 years later .
And after 33 years of marriage , the joy of raising 2 grown sons , and a life I both chose and love , I ’ m not going to lie down for any tyrant wanting to tell me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how to practice it .
Only the most naive pastors will comfort themselves by thinking these restrictions might only apply to Christian counselors , or para-church ministry leaders .
Instead , they will go straight to the pastor ’ s office , monitoring his advice and his prayers .
So said Calgary ’ s Council Board Chair Gian-Carlo in a video available on You Tube : “ if counseling work undertaken by a church was deemed to be conversion therapy , they would be in danger of violation of this by-law.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Pressed for clarification , he affirmed this would apply to ongoing counseling , or even something as random as a person dropping by a church to get ministerial advice about gender identity or homosexuality .
The resulting endangered species of pastors would include all Southern Baptist , Assemblies of God , Calvary Chapel , Vineyard , Foursquare , or Nazarene pastors , all Catholic priests , all Mormon elders , and all Muslim clerics who counsel according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fairness , let ’ s recognize that all “ conversion therapy ” horror stories aren ’ t fiction .
Some people , seeking help for their struggles , have been promised their counselor could make all their gay feelings disappear .
Some were told it was all Dad ’ s fault , or Mom ’ s fault , or Somebody ’ s fault .
Others were subjected to exorcisms , shaming techniques and even sexual abuse .
All this and more has happened in the name of counsel/ministry to homosexuals .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hysteria , drug addiction , overeating — been exempt from quacks or ineptitude ?
Whenever there ’ s professional or ministerial help , some professional or ministerial abuse will rear its head .
The answer isn ’ t to ban the help itself , but to punish the abusers on a case-by-case basis .
The problem , after all , is the way the clients were treated , not the fact that they were treated .
But there ’ s a chase to cut to here , and that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversion therapy ” is hardly the end goal .
Rather , it ’ s the silencing of any voice holding to a traditional view of marriage and sexuality .
Think about it .
If pastors are forbidden to tell people they can turn away from homosexual behavior , then pastors must inevitably stop calling homosexuality a sin .
That ’ s because a foundational belief all faiths hold is that if something is a sin , it can be recognized as such , then turned away from .
That ’ s the essence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and holiness .
So if homosexual sex can ’ t be turned from , it also can ’ t be called a sin .
LGBTQ strategists know that .
Do we ?
And the Banned Played On We ’ re going to see more of this , internationally and domestically , since “ Ban Conversion Therapy ” has become the rallying cry of today ’ s politicized LGBTQ movement , just as surely as “ Marriage Equality ” was its rallying cry a decade ago .
We ’ re left then , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biblical definition of marriage and family a moral and doctrinal hill we ’ re willing to die on , or a secondary issue we can politely avoid ?
• Are we willing to allow the State to tell the Church what we may or may not call sin , and what we will or will not call righteousness ?
Our answers will determine whether the Church will continue Her assigned role as the light of the world , or whether the world will assume its desired role as the light of the Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Genesis Biblical Counseling and a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors .
His daily blog is Joe Dallas Online .
He is the author of Desires in Conflict , The Game Plan , and When Homosexuality Hits Home .
His latest book is Five Steps to Breaking Free from Porn .
Follow him on Twitter at @ JoeDallasTGP and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .
To register for his live webinar , Wednesday , June 3 , click HERE .

Sit.
Stay.
Don’t speak!
Lie down. Now roll over.
Aw, who’s a good church? You’re a good church! Yes, you are.
So said the City Council of Calgary to its churches — and indeed, to believers in general — when it voted Monday, unanimously, to ban so-called “Conversion Therapy.” Calgary citizens in defiance will now face a $10,000 fine, a year in prison, or both.
What the Left achieves in Canada today shows what it plans for America tomorrow. That’s why Christians in the States should carefully note three aspects of this story: the definition of “Conversion Therapy,” the punishments faced by people found guilty of practicing it, and the impact these bans will unquestionably have on churches.
The Crime in Question
First, the definition. The ban describes Conversion Therapy as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change, repress or discourage a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior.”
I asked for help, which was, thank God, legal.
This goes far beyond forbidding counselors from making extravagant promises to “cure” all homosexual temptations. It also prohibits a counselor from helping someone change their behavior, even if that behavior conflicts with their conscience.
Never mind what the person seeking counsel wants or believes as a Christian, an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, or a Mormon. Religion be damned. Sit down, don’t speak, roll over.
The Consequences Inevitable
Then there’s the consequences laws like this will have on private, profound decisions. On that point, let’s play a little Rod Serling.
Imagine, if you will, an adult male who’s spent years identifying as gay, sexually active with men, but now feeling a change of heart about homosexuality based on his religious convictions. Imagine him seeking out a Christian counselor with a belief system compatible with his own. Then imagine him saying, “I’ve been having relations with men, but I no longer feel right about that in light of what I believe as a Christian. Please help me live my life within the parameters of my faith.”
Now imagine the counselor saying, “I could lose $10,000 plus one year of freedom if I do what you ask.”
In 1984 I was that man asking for help, and thank God, it was legal.
I am also that counselor, 36 years later. And after 33 years of marriage, the joy of raising 2 grown sons, and a life I both chose and love, I’m not going to lie down for any tyrant wanting to tell me and my clients what to believe, and how to practice it.
The Criminals in Danger
Only the most naive pastors will comfort themselves by thinking these restrictions might only apply to Christian counselors, or para-church ministry leaders. Instead, they will go straight to the pastor’s office, monitoring his advice and his prayers.
So said Calgary’s Council Board Chair Gian-Carlo in a video available on You Tube: “if counseling work undertaken by a church was deemed to be conversion therapy, they would be in danger of violation of this by-law.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Pressed for clarification, he affirmed this would apply to ongoing counseling, or even something as random as a person dropping by a church to get ministerial advice about gender identity or homosexuality.
The resulting endangered species of pastors would include all Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Foursquare, or Nazarene pastors, all Catholic priests, all Mormon elders, and all Muslim clerics who counsel according to their organizations’ clearly stated positions.
Fair and Balanced
In fairness, let’s recognize that all “conversion therapy” horror stories aren’t fiction. Some people, seeking help for their struggles, have been promised their counselor could make all their gay feelings disappear. Some were told it was all Dad’s fault, or Mom’s fault, or Somebody’s fault. Others were subjected to exorcisms, shaming techniques and even sexual abuse. All this and more has happened in the name of counsel/ministry to homosexuals.
But has any area of treatment — depression, hysteria, drug addiction, overeating — been exempt from quacks or ineptitude? Whenever there’s professional or ministerial help, some professional or ministerial abuse will rear its head. The answer isn’t to ban the help itself, but to punish the abusers on a case-by-case basis.
The problem, after all, is the way the clients were treated, not the fact that they were treated.
The Bottom Line?
But there’s a chase to cut to here, and that’s the agenda behind the policies. Banning “conversion therapy” is hardly the end goal. Rather, it’s the silencing of any voice holding to a traditional view of marriage and sexuality.
Think about it. If pastors are forbidden to tell people they can turn away from homosexual behavior, then pastors must inevitably stop calling homosexuality a sin.
That’s because a foundational belief all faiths hold is that if something is a sin, it can be recognized as such, then turned away from. That’s the essence of confession, repentance, redemption, and holiness.
So if homosexual sex can’t be turned from, it also can’t be called a sin. LGBTQ strategists know that. Do we?
And the Banned Played On
We’re going to see more of this, internationally and domestically, since “Ban Conversion Therapy” has become the rallying cry of today’s politicized LGBTQ movement, just as surely as “Marriage Equality” was its rallying cry a decade ago. We’re left then, with two simple questions:
Is the Biblical definition of marriage and family a moral and doctrinal hill we’re willing to die on, or a secondary issue we can politely avoid? Are we willing to allow the State to tell the Church what we may or may not call sin, and what we will or will not call righteousness?
Our answers will determine whether the Church will continue Her assigned role as the light of the world, or whether the world will assume its desired role as the light of the Church.
Joe Dallas is the Program Director of Genesis Biblical Counseling and a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors. His daily blog is Joe Dallas Online. He is the author of Desires in Conflict, The Game Plan, and When Homosexuality Hits Home. His latest book is Five Steps to Breaking Free from Porn. Follow him on Twitter at @JoeDallasTGP and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg. To register for his live webinar, Wednesday, June 3, click HERE.
Originally published at JoeDallas.com. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-05-28--I Went to Confession. Was Asked to Give My Name for Contact Tracing. I Refused. You Wouldn’t Believe

I Went to Confession. Was Asked to Give My Name for Contact Tracing. I Refused. You Wouldn’t Believe the Grief I’ve Gotten

“ In essentials , unity ; in non-essentials , liberty ; in all things , charity.
” — St. Augustine I had an unsettling experience this weekend when I attempted to go to Confession at a local church .
I described it in a short Facebook post because I believe it is important that we realize what ’ s happening , or what likely will happen in parishes around the country .
Briefly , here ’ s what happened .
Waiting at the open church door was a masked woman holding a clipboard .
She said hello and asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I only wanted to go to Confession .
She said that she was required to get my full name and contact information for tracing purposes .
I made the decision not to go inside , and I quietly turned around and left .
I do not believe it is right nor necessary to require a penitent to give his/her name and contact info in order to go to Confession , and I will not do it .
I have exactly zero confidence that all this contact tracing will not be used and abused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to further erode religious liberty in our country — not to mention every other form of liberty .
( I ’ m also uncertain how this squares with canon law regarding anonymity in Confession , but I did not raise that issue in my post . )
I did not expect everyone to agree with my takeaway on the situation .
There ’ s plenty of room for differing opinions .
There are valid points to be made on many sides .
I was stunned at the heat and viciousness of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out with their verbal knives to get some blood .
I was called a total liar by one man who insisted I ’ d made the entire incident up out of thin air .
I lost count of how many people called me selfishly indifferent to the health of others ; pridefully obsessed with my own rights ; lacking in even an iota of charity for my neighbor and thus , a hypocrite and a terrible Christian ; and a dangerous Catholic for “ misrepresenting the faith and the rules about the sacraments.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with my public “ tantrum ” and refusing the grace of God because it didn ’ t come on my terms .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
More than a few folks flat out accused me of idolatry .
Yes , it seems I idolize my freedom and privacy above all else .
Mine is a “ spirit of insubordination ” and my values “ have nothing to do with faith.
” One woman decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when I finally make it to Confession , I should confess my “ massive and selfish indifference to the health and safety of others ” and then added , “ If you can ’ t be bothered to make minor sacrifices for the lives of others — ask yourself , is it sloth , greed or gluttony you need to confess ?
” Remember , these responses came from other Christians , all in the name of charity .
Church , we have a grave problem indeed , and it isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single identifying factor by which Christ said the world would know us as His ?
As I said , there are serious issues at stake here and there is much to discuss and debate .
There are valid and differing views that should be considered honestly .
We must address them like rational adults .
More than that , we who are Christians are obliged to respond with honesty , self-control , respect — with love .
We may disagree , even vehemently .
We can and should debate the merits and demerits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat this wretched virus .
Yet if my experience is any indication , discussion and debate are being fed to the lions of viciousness , self-righteous judgment , condemnation , nastiness and hatred .
Friends are writing each other off with shocking ease .
Acquaintances are slitting one another ’ s throats .
Strangers are mowing down strangers with self-satisfied glee and smug assurance .
We Are Battling Fear as Much as a Virus The crisis we are living through didn ’ t come with a guidebook or a map or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love have died , are dying , are sick , are suffering , have lost jobs and businesses , have lost homes , have lost hope , have been overcome .
It is frightening to say the least .
Our only defense is charity .
To remember , with due humility , that you may be right , I may be wrong , or a little of both , but we are obligated to love one another .
We sin by slashing each other with our pompous words of condemnation .
We sin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with unjust accusations .
Stop it .
We need to discuss , debate , disagree , hash it all out and show the world how to do it with love .
Come , Holy Spirit , fill our hearts .
Enkindle in us the fire of Your love .
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream .
You can follow her at @ jenniehartline .

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” — St. Augustine
I had an unsettling experience this weekend when I attempted to go to Confession at a local church. I described it in a short Facebook post because I believe it is important that we realize what’s happening, or what likely will happen in parishes around the country.
Briefly, here’s what happened. Waiting at the open church door was a masked woman holding a clipboard. She said hello and asked for my full name. I replied that I only wanted to go to Confession. She said that she was required to get my full name and contact information for tracing purposes.
I made the decision not to go inside, and I quietly turned around and left. I do not believe it is right nor necessary to require a penitent to give his/her name and contact info in order to go to Confession, and I will not do it. I have exactly zero confidence that all this contact tracing will not be used and abused by the State to take greater control and to further erode religious liberty in our country — not to mention every other form of liberty. (I’m also uncertain how this squares with canon law regarding anonymity in Confession, but I did not raise that issue in my post.)
I did not expect everyone to agree with my takeaway on the situation. There’s plenty of room for differing opinions. There are valid points to be made on many sides.
I was stunned at the heat and viciousness of the responses I got.
Irony, Much?
Complete strangers came out with their verbal knives to get some blood. I was called a total liar by one man who insisted I’d made the entire incident up out of thin air. I lost count of how many people called me selfishly indifferent to the health of others; pridefully obsessed with my own rights; lacking in even an iota of charity for my neighbor and thus, a hypocrite and a terrible Christian; and a dangerous Catholic for “misrepresenting the faith and the rules about the sacraments.”
I was inciting “rotten fruit” with my public “tantrum” and refusing the grace of God because it didn’t come on my terms.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
More than a few folks flat out accused me of idolatry. Yes, it seems I idolize my freedom and privacy above all else. Mine is a “spirit of insubordination” and my values “have nothing to do with faith.”
One woman decided it was her place to chastise me that when I finally make it to Confession, I should confess my “massive and selfish indifference to the health and safety of others” and then added, “If you can’t be bothered to make minor sacrifices for the lives of others — ask yourself, is it sloth, greed or gluttony you need to confess?”
Remember, these responses came from other Christians, all in the name of charity.
A Greater Threat
Church, we have a grave problem indeed, and it isn’t the virus. What is the single identifying factor by which Christ said the world would know us as His?
As I said, there are serious issues at stake here and there is much to discuss and debate. There are valid and differing views that should be considered honestly. We must address them like rational adults. More than that, we who are Christians are obliged to respond with honesty, self-control, respect — with love. We may disagree, even vehemently. We can and should debate the merits and demerits of the steps being taken right now to combat this wretched virus.
Our only defense is charity.
Yet if my experience is any indication, discussion and debate are being fed to the lions of viciousness, self-righteous judgment, condemnation, nastiness and hatred. Friends are writing each other off with shocking ease. Acquaintances are slitting one another’s throats. Strangers are mowing down strangers with self-satisfied glee and smug assurance.
We Are Battling Fear as Much as a Virus
The crisis we are living through didn’t come with a guidebook or a map or a formula for guaranteed success. People we love have died, are dying, are sick, are suffering, have lost jobs and businesses, have lost homes, have lost hope, have been overcome. It is frightening to say the least.
Our only defense is charity. To remember, with due humility, that you may be right, I may be wrong, or a little of both, but we are obligated to love one another. We sin by slashing each other with our pompous words of condemnation. We sin by devouring one another’s character with unjust accusations.
Stop it. We need to discuss, debate, disagree, hash it all out and show the world how to do it with love.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill our hearts. Enkindle in us the fire of Your love.
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream. You can follow her at @jenniehartline.


thestream--2020-05-29--Medical Ethicist Warns: Beware the Idolatry of a COVID-19 Vaccine

The entire world is focused on a vaccine for COVID-19 so we can get back to “ normal , ” whatever that will mean .
Timelines vary as to when one or more vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus will be available .
Some authorities , such as the executive director of the World Health Organization ’ s health emergencies program , fear that , like AIDS , we may not be able to eradicate this virus .
Others say they will refuse to be vaccinated even if and when one is available .
As a medical ethicist , I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 virus so long as it meets the four criteria of biomedical ethics : autonomy , beneficence , non-maleficence , and justice .
Autonomy requires that those to be vaccinated are able to make self-determined , non-coerced decisions regarding the procedure and that they understand its risks and benefits .
Beneficence requires that the vaccine be provided for the purpose of benefiting the recipient .
Non-maleficence requires that the vaccine does not harm the patient or others in society and that the patient ’ s privacy is protected .
Justice requires that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in society .
I am confident that the relevant medical authorities will not release a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus unless it meets these criteria .
And I am hopeful that such a vaccine will confer a polio-like immunity for humanity .
As an evangelical theologian , however , I am concerned not with what such a vaccine can do but with what it can not do .
I do not believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is God ’ s judgment on the world .
But I do believe that one way God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using it to make us more aware of our mortality than we were six months ago .
Churches are reporting unprecedented audiences for their online services , far exceeding the capacities of their physical campuses .
One church that averaged eight thousand viewers for its online service before the pandemic had an audience of 1.3 million on Easter Sunday .
Our ministry has experienced the largest reach in our history by far .
A deadly virus for which we have no immunity or vaccine is an existential threat for which we need existential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunizes humanity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus , however , our secularized society will shift its focus from death to life , from fearing the virus to rebuilding our economy .
But we will be no less mortal than we are now .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
With an effective vaccine , you and I will not die of COVID-19 .
However , unless Christ returns first , we will die of something else .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its prior place as the No .
1 killer of Americans .
It may be that another virus takes the place of SARS-CoV-2 in birthing a pandemic .
But our mortality rate will still be 100 percent .
Our generation has become inured to death .
We see it portrayed in movies , television shows , and video games on an unprecedented level of fictional violence , all of which desensitizes us to its reality .
And before the pandemic , we held the misguided belief that so long as we eat a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excessively or smoke , and get regular check-ups , we can banish death from our thoughts at least until we achieve old age .
The SARS-CoV-2 virus exposed the folly of that delusion .
A vaccine may immunize us against the virus , but it will not immunize us against death .
To pretend otherwise is to make a vaccine an idol .
It is to trust something we create more than we trust our Creator .
Christians know that “ people are destined to die once , and after that to face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the pandemic offers an urgent reminder : we are one day closer to that day than ever before .
And we have only today to be ready .
Dr. Jim Denison is the founder of the Denison Forum .
His Daily Article reaches 1.5 million people monthly with subscribers in 226 countries .

The entire world is focused on a vaccine for COVID-19 so we can get back to “normal,” whatever that will mean.
Timelines vary as to when one or more vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus will be available. Some authorities, such as the executive director of the World Health Organization’s health emergencies program, fear that, like AIDS, we may not be able to eradicate this virus.
Others say they will refuse to be vaccinated even if and when one is available.
As a medical ethicist, I am in favor of a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus so long as it meets the four criteria of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.
Autonomy requires that those to be vaccinated are able to make self-determined, non-coerced decisions regarding the procedure and that they understand its risks and benefits. Beneficence requires that the vaccine be provided for the purpose of benefiting the recipient. Non-maleficence requires that the vaccine does not harm the patient or others in society and that the patient’s privacy is protected. Justice requires that the vaccine is made available to all groups in society.
I am confident that the relevant medical authorities will not release a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus unless it meets these criteria. And I am hopeful that such a vaccine will confer a polio-like immunity for humanity.
As an evangelical theologian, however, I am concerned not with what such a vaccine can do but with what it cannot do.
Facing Our Own Mortality
I do not believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is God’s judgment on the world. But I do believe that one way God is redeeming this horrible disease is by using it to make us more aware of our mortality than we were six months ago.
Churches are reporting unprecedented audiences for their online services, far exceeding the capacities of their physical campuses. One church that averaged eight thousand viewers for its online service before the pandemic had an audience of 1.3 million on Easter Sunday. Our ministry has experienced the largest reach in our history by far.
A deadly virus for which we have no immunity or vaccine is an existential threat for which we need existential hope.
If and when a vaccine immunizes humanity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, however, our secularized society will shift its focus from death to life, from fearing the virus to rebuilding our economy.
But we will be no less mortal than we are now.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
With an effective vaccine, you and I will not die of COVID-19. However, unless Christ returns first, we will die of something else. It may be that heart disease returns to its prior place as the No. 1 killer of Americans. It may be that another virus takes the place of SARS-CoV-2 in birthing a pandemic.
But our mortality rate will still be 100 percent.
Delusion Exposed
Our generation has become inured to death. We see it portrayed in movies, television shows, and video games on an unprecedented level of fictional violence, all of which desensitizes us to its reality.
And before the pandemic, we held the misguided belief that so long as we eat a healthy diet, don’t drink excessively or smoke, and get regular check-ups, we can banish death from our thoughts at least until we achieve old age.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus exposed the folly of that delusion.
A vaccine may immunize us against the virus, but it will not immunize us against death. To pretend otherwise is to make a vaccine an idol. It is to trust something we create more than we trust our Creator.
Christians know that “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27 NIV). But the pandemic offers an urgent reminder: we are one day closer to that day than ever before.
And we have only today to be ready.
Dr. Jim Denison is the founder of the Denison Forum. His Daily Article reaches 1.5 million people monthly with subscribers in 226 countries.


thestream--2020-05-29--This Week at War: Defending America

This Week at War: Defending America

If there was any remaining doubt that our military is fighting a war on COVID-19 , please allow me to share the story of U.S. Army Reserve Sgt .
Simon Zamudio .
“ Zamudio , who was married and recently had become a father , had served as a unit supply specialist during his five years in the Army , according to Army officials and his obituary , ” Stars and Stripes reported on Wednesday .
“ His death marked the third among U.S. troops since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and the first since a Navy sailor died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s aforementioned obituary is difficult to read .
“ Sgt .
Simon Zamudio age 34 , proud U.S. Army Reserve Soldier from Carpentersville , Illinois passed away May 22 , 2020 at St. Alexius Medical Center in Hoffman Estates , ” the tribute begins before going on to mention his wife , Carina Zamudio-Ramos , and their newborn daughter , Xoe .
“ He was so healthy , ” the soldier ’ s sister , Alicia Zamudio , told ABC 7 Chicago .
“ He was being deployed next month .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was good.
” In a heartbreaking turn of events , ABC 7 Chicago and The Washington Post reported that the soldier ’ s mother , Gloria Cervantes-Zamudio , died of coronavirus complications on Memorial Day , just three days after her son .
Words can not express the sorrow we feel for the entire Zamudio family at this unimaginably difficult hour .
A visitation was held for the departed soldier on Wednesday night in Illinois , with a private burial to follow .
Please pray for the loved ones of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as the tens of thousands of U.S. troops and military families who are risking their lives every day during this deadly pandemic .
The war being fought against COVID-19 by these selfless patriots is not yet over .
President Trump said this week that “ it is time ” for all American troops to leave Afghanistan , where the brave men and women of the U.S. military have been fighting for nearly 19 years .
The commander-in-chief reinforced his desire to end America ’ s longest war with a Wednesday morning tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 10,000 ” troops in Afghanistan , according to the ABC News , with the former troop strength number also being the target for mid-July in adherence to an agreement the Trump administration made with the Taliban .
The Washington Post reported that the President of the United States wants all U.S. forces home from Afghanistan by Election Day , which the Pentagon is drawing up plans to facilitate .
Please join The Stream in praying for each and every American service member still fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and other dangerous places around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sailor , airman and Marine is back home , our military is still at war .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
A group of U.S. Navy pilots and sailors is back home after an eight-month overseas deployment .
Welcome home , heroes !
Thank you for your dedicated service to our country .
Tom Sileo is a contributing senior editor of The Stream .
He is co-author of 8 Seconds of Courage , Brothers Forever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming Three Wise Men .
Follow Tom on Twitter @ TSileo and The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

Coronavirus
If there was any remaining doubt that our military is fighting a war on COVID-19, please allow me to share the story of U.S. Army Reserve Sgt. Simon Zamudio.
“Zamudio, who was married and recently had become a father, had served as a unit supply specialist during his five years in the Army, according to Army officials and his obituary,” Stars and Stripes reported on Wednesday. “His death marked the third among U.S. troops since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and the first since a Navy sailor died April 13.”
Army Sgt. Simon Zamudio, who was married and recently had become a father, had served as a unit supply specialist during his five years in the Army, according to Army officials and his obituary. https://t.co/dqDzkB7Bvz — Stars and Stripes (@starsandstripes) May 27, 2020
The fallen soldier’s aforementioned obituary is difficult to read.
“Sgt. Simon Zamudio age 34, proud U.S. Army Reserve Soldier from Carpentersville, Illinois passed away May 22, 2020 at St. Alexius Medical Center in Hoffman Estates,” the tribute begins before going on to mention his wife, Carina Zamudio-Ramos, and their newborn daughter, Xoe.
“He was so healthy,” the soldier’s sister, Alicia Zamudio, told ABC 7 Chicago. “He was being deployed next month. So, we know he was doing, health-wise, he was good.”
In a heartbreaking turn of events, ABC 7 Chicago and The Washington Post reported that the soldier’s mother, Gloria Cervantes-Zamudio, died of coronavirus complications on Memorial Day, just three days after her son. Words cannot express the sorrow we feel for the entire Zamudio family at this unimaginably difficult hour.
Carpentersville coronavirus: Army Sgt. Simon Zamudio and mother die of COVID-19 3 days apart https://t.co/BP43EDJsYz via @abc7chicago — Shalom Klein (@ShalomKlein) May 28, 2020
A visitation was held for the departed soldier on Wednesday night in Illinois, with a private burial to follow. Please pray for the loved ones of this fallen hero and his mom, as well as the tens of thousands of U.S. troops and military families who are risking their lives every day during this deadly pandemic. The war being fought against COVID-19 by these selfless patriots is not yet over.
Afghanistan
President Trump said this week that “it is time” for all American troops to leave Afghanistan, where the brave men and women of the U.S. military have been fighting for nearly 19 years. The commander-in-chief reinforced his desire to end America’s longest war with a Wednesday morning tweet.
We are acting as a police force, not the fighting force that we are, in Afghanistan. After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own Country. Bring our soldiers back home but closely watch what is going on and strike with a thunder like never before, if necessary! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
There are currently “between 8,600 and 10,000” troops in Afghanistan, according to the ABC News, with the former troop strength number also being the target for mid-July in adherence to an agreement the Trump administration made with the Taliban. The Washington Post reported that the President of the United States wants all U.S. forces home from Afghanistan by Election Day, which the Pentagon is drawing up plans to facilitate.
Please join The Stream in praying for each and every American service member still fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and other dangerous places around the world. Until every single soldier, sailor, airman and Marine is back home, our military is still at war.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Coming Home
A group of U.S. Navy pilots and sailors is back home after an eight-month overseas deployment.
Welcome home, heroes! Thank you for your dedicated service to our country.
Tom Sileo is a contributing senior editor of The Stream. He is co-author of 8 Seconds of Courage, Brothers Forever, Fire in My Eyes and the forthcoming Three Wise Men. Follow Tom on Twitter @TSileo and The Stream at @Streamdotorg.
CALL TO ACTION: COVID-19 is causing massive disruptions in life. The Stream’s parent organization, LIFE Outreach International is helping send a first wave of help. LIFE’s local Mission Partners are already distributing thousands of surgical masks, gloves and other sanitary supplies to first responders, hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, other partners have focused on distributing as many meals as possible to help those who need food. You can help with these efforts. Click here to donate.


thestream--2020-05-29--Military Photo of the Day: Heroes Honoring Heroes

Medical and law enforcement personnel wave American flags and cheer as a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker flies over the @ @ @ @ @ Health System Medical Center in Moreno Valley , California , on May 14 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ safe weekend , everyone !
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly @ @ @ @ @ and Moral Issues of Our Day .

Medical and law enforcement personnel wave American flags and cheer as a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker flies over the crowd at the Riverside University Health System Medical Center in Moreno Valley, California, on May 14, 2020.
Have a healthy and safe weekend, everyone!
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.


thestream--2020-05-29--A Black Man Defends Himself With a Gun and Police Shoot His Girlfriend. Why Aren’t Gun Owners Speaki

A Black Man Defends Himself With a Gun and Police Shoot His Girlfriend. Why Aren’t Gun Owners Speaking Up?

Kenneth Walker is a black man who shot at police officers at 1 a.m. on March 13 when they attempted to serve a search warrant on his girlfriend Breonna Taylor .
He injured one , Sgt .
John Mattingly , the first officer to enter the apartment .
The officers shot back , killing Taylor , reportedly hitting her eight times .
Walker maintains he shot in self-defense , because he didn ’ t realize that it was the police banging on the door .
The police weren ’ t even looking for Walker and Taylor .
They were looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed he used her apartment to stash drugs or money .
According to the politics reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal , the warrant was based on police seeing the suspect leave her home once several months ago .
The police didn ’ t find anything .
The Raid and the Shooting A grand jury indicted Walker for attempted murder .
Tom Wine , the Commonwealth Attorney handling the case , held a long press conference earlier this month .
He spent most of the time rebutting claims that the police had entered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why he asked the judge overseeing the case to dismiss the charges .
He claimed that the prosecutor and police had not misled the grand jury .
However , he admitted that the grand jury should have been given more information , specifically Walker ’ s testimony to the police .
According to Wine , several officers said they knocked on the door three or more times .
No one came to the door .
After that , they used the battering ram three times to break down the door .
Wine played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview with Sgt .
John Mattingly , the wounded police officer .
Walker waived his right to an attorney .
Walker said the knocks woke up him and Taylor .
She yelled , “ Who is it ?
” No one responded .
Then another knock at the door .
She yelled the same thing “ at the top of her lungs.
” Again , no response .
She yelled again .
They put on their clothes , he got his gun , and they walked into the hallway .
He saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he couldn ’ t see who was coming in .
He shot a warning shot , aiming down .
The police shot back multiple times .
Mattingly admitted his team of officers didn ’ t announce themselves the first couple of times they knocked , which was about 6 or 7 times over 45 seconds or a minute .
Then they started yelling “ Police !
Search warrant !
” Finally , they rammed the door .
Mattingly said he went into the living room , looked down the hallway and saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun and shot him , hitting him in the leg .
He shot back four times .
He fell back and then fired two more rounds reaching around the door .
Wine admitted during the press conference that there can be friction between stand-your-ground laws and no-knock warrants .
He says the city is considering eliminating no-knock warrants in drug cases .
“ There is no amount of cocaine , heroin , marijuana , any drugs , any money … is worth the life of a human being , whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or police officer , ” Wine said .
Louisville ’ s mayor has said that the chief of police should sign off on requests for no-knock warrants before they ’ re presented to a judge .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) denounced them , telling the Courier-Journal , “ No one should lose their life in pursuit of a crime without a victim , and ‘ no-knock ’ warrants should be forbidden.
” Paul has previously expressed his concern that the police are becoming militarized .
In an op-ed for Time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote , “ There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace , but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.
” This case comes down to one question : Did Walker hear the police announce themselves when they knocked on the door ?
He says he didn ’ t , and thought it was someone trying to break in .
He mentions Taylor ’ s former boyfriend as a possible threat .
Wine said at the end of the press conference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker heard [ the police ] is totally dependent on Mr. Walker ’ s credibility.
” Walker also said he had no reason to pick a fight with the police .
He and his girlfriend had no criminal records .
He was a legal gun owner , so it didn ’ t make sense for him to shoot if he knew they were police officers .
According to the U.S .
Concealed Carry Association , Kentucky ’ s stand-your-ground laws mean that “ A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat.
” That person What About the NRA Many people on social media have demanded to know why gun rights supporters like the NRA haven ’ t come out in support of Walker .
Liberal writers claimed the reason was racism .
Washington Post writer Radley Balko tweeted “ Gun rights groups should be all over this , no ?
A registered gun owner defended his home from armed invaders .
In return , the police killed his girlfriend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow up tweet , he said : “ Can ’ t imagine a more profound violation of the right to keep and bear arms .
Walker defended himself from armed men who broke into his home and killed his girlfriend .
For that he was arrested .
Yet the NRA has said what they always say after these raids : Not a damn thing.
” But maybe they haven ’ t spoken up because it ’ s taken awhile to get all the facts out ; some of the reporting has been inaccurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the time to watch Wine ’ s 41-minute press conference .
Not to mention the awkwardness of defending a shooting that triggered the death of Walker ’ s girlfriend .
Some people believe the only reason Wine dropped the charges is because of the public outcry , not because he believed Walker .
The FBI and attorney general are now investigating the incident .
There is no indication that charges will be filed against the police officers .
Taylor ’ s family has filed a lawsuit which says the suspect who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ custody .
Attorney Benjamin Crump is representing them .
He has represented the families of other high-profile black shooting victims , including Ahmed Arbery and Trayvon Martin .
Rachel Alexander is a senior editor of The Stream .
Follow her on Twitter at Rach_IC .
Follow The Stream at streamdotorg .
Send tips to rachel.alexander @ stream.org .

Kenneth Walker is a black man who shot at police officers at 1 a.m. on March 13 when they attempted to serve a search warrant on his girlfriend Breonna Taylor. He injured one, Sgt. John Mattingly, the first officer to enter the apartment. The officers shot back, killing Taylor, reportedly hitting her eight times.
Walker maintains he shot in self-defense, because he didn’t realize that it was the police banging on the door.
The police weren’t even looking for Walker and Taylor. They were looking for a man Taylor knew. They believed he used her apartment to stash drugs or money. According to the politics reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal, the warrant was based on police seeing the suspect leave her home once several months ago. The police didn’t find anything.
The Raid and the Shooting
A grand jury indicted Walker for attempted murder. Tom Wine, the Commonwealth Attorney handling the case, held a long press conference earlier this month. He spent most of the time rebutting claims that the police had entered the apartment without knocking.
Wine also explained why he asked the judge overseeing the case to dismiss the charges. He claimed that the prosecutor and police had not misled the grand jury. However, he admitted that the grand jury should have been given more information, specifically Walker’s testimony to the police.
The DA said he changed his mind about the case after more information came out and he looked into the case personally.
According to Wine, several officers said they knocked on the door three or more times. No one came to the door. After that, they used the battering ram three times to break down the door. Wine played clips from Walker’s interview and the interview with Sgt. John Mattingly, the wounded police officer. Walker waived his right to an attorney.
Walker said the knocks woke up him and Taylor. She yelled, “Who is it?” No one responded. Then another knock at the door. She yelled the same thing “at the top of her lungs.” Again, no response. She yelled again. They put on their clothes, he got his gun, and they walked into the hallway. He saw the door comes off the hinges, but he couldn’t see who was coming in. He shot a warning shot, aiming down. The police shot back multiple times.
Mattingly admitted his team of officers didn’t announce themselves the first couple of times they knocked, which was about 6 or 7 times over 45 seconds or a minute. Then they started yelling “Police! Search warrant!” Finally, they rammed the door. Mattingly said he went into the living room, looked down the hallway and saw the two. The man had a gun and shot him, hitting him in the leg. He shot back four times. He fell back and then fired two more rounds reaching around the door.
Stand-Your-Ground Laws vs. No-Knock Warrants
Wine admitted during the press conference that there can be friction between stand-your-ground laws and no-knock warrants. He says the city is considering eliminating no-knock warrants in drug cases. “There is no amount of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, any drugs, any money … is worth the life of a human being, whether it’s a civilian, like Breonna Taylor, or police officer,” Wine said. Louisville’s mayor has said that the chief of police should sign off on requests for no-knock warrants before they’re presented to a judge.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) denounced them, telling the Courier-Journal, “No one should lose their life in pursuit of a crime without a victim, and ‘no-knock’ warrants should be forbidden.” Paul has previously expressed his concern that the police are becoming militarized. In an op-ed for Time in 2014 after the Michael Brown shooting, he wrote, “There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.”
This case appears to come down to mostly one thing: Did Walker hear the police announce themselves when they knocked on the door?
This case comes down to one question: Did Walker hear the police announce themselves when they knocked on the door? He says he didn’t, and thought it was someone trying to break in. He mentions Taylor’s former boyfriend as a possible threat. Wine said at the end of the press conference, “Whether or not you believe Mr. Walker heard [the police] is totally dependent on Mr. Walker’s credibility.”
Walker also said he had no reason to pick a fight with the police. He and his girlfriend had no criminal records. He was a legal gun owner, so it didn’t make sense for him to shoot if he knew they were police officers.
According to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, Kentucky’s stand-your-ground laws mean that “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat.” That person
has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. … Any person who uses a gun in self-defense has immunity from criminal and civil law.
What About the NRA
Many people on social media have demanded to know why gun rights supporters like the NRA haven’t come out in support of Walker. Liberal writers claimed the reason was racism.
Washington Post writer Radley Balko tweeted “Gun rights groups should be all over this, no? A registered gun owner defended his home from armed invaders. In return, the police killed his girlfriend, then arrested him.” In a follow up tweet, he said: “Can’t imagine a more profound violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Walker defended himself from armed men who broke into his home and killed his girlfriend. For that he was arrested. Yet the NRA has said what they always say after these raids: Not a damn thing.”
But maybe they haven’t spoken up because it’s taken awhile to get all the facts out; some of the reporting has been inaccurate and most people aren’t going to take the time to watch Wine’s 41-minute press conference. Not to mention the awkwardness of defending a shooting that triggered the death of Walker’s girlfriend. Some people believe the only reason Wine dropped the charges is because of the public outcry, not because he believed Walker.
The FBI and attorney general are now investigating the incident. There is no indication that charges will be filed against the police officers. Taylor’s family has filed a lawsuit which says the suspect who police were looking for was already in custody. Attorney Benjamin Crump is representing them. He has represented the families of other high-profile black shooting victims, including Ahmed Arbery and Trayvon Martin.
Rachel Alexander is a senior editor of The Stream. Follow her on Twitter at Rach_IC. Follow The Stream at streamdotorg. Send tips to [email protected].


thestream--2020-05-29--A Free-Speech Internet Guy Weighs in on Trump’s Executive Order on Online Censorship

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Thursday to help protect the abilities of common people to express themselves freely on social media .
Of course , that is not how the story is being played by many in the media .
The Guardian and a host of other newspaper and media outlets are accusing the president of trying to “ punish Twitter.
” They are casting the story as a Johnny-come-lately personal vendetta by Trump against a social media platform he constantly uses and which he feels turned against him .
CNN ran this headline Thursday : “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This implies the order is singling out big social media companies for political purposes because they have a decidedly liberal bent .
But Is That What It Really Is ?
Ironically , it seems to this internet guy ( since the early ’ 90s ) to be just the opposite .
The entire executive order and the controversy swirling around it center on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 , in particular , Section 230 .
And though I am not a lawyer , I have something of a history looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
I ’ ll tell you some of that story shortly .
But first , we need to take two steps back .
What is this really about ?
Many conservatives , especially those speaking out openly in social media , on YouTube and in other online forums , have watched censorship grow for several years now .
Increasingly , large social media platforms have been hiding and even deleting posts that are not following what “ they ” see as correct thinking .
After the 2016 election and its ( to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several internet social media giants ostensibly began an increased effort to reign in “ fake news ” and “ Russian trolls ” on their platforms .
Gradually this has evolved into a creeping , selective censorship of individual views , particularly from conservative posters , few of whom speak Russian and many with solid facts .
Most of those affected are not large media journalists or even new media conservative outlets .
They are , rather , common people like you and me who have dared to speak up consistently on public platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown into “ Facebook Gulag ” ( affectionately so-called ) , being “ shadow banned ” on Twitter , or being demonetized on YouTube .
Many of the censored posters have spoken out on subjects that 50 years ago would not have been questioned by anyone , such as pro-life issues , same-sex marriage and the right of business owners to follow their consciences .
For example , in the Twitter case , President Trump was speaking out on Twitter about the dangers inherent in using mass mail-in ballots , hardly debatable even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ fact check ” warning on the post , in essence editorializing on his point .
Therein lies the rub .
Twitter , Facebook , Google and other internet platforms have long been assumed to be “ neutral platforms.
” The idea is to allow all people , small and great , to publish their thoughts and opinions without editorial comment from the platform that hosts the discussion .
Of course , debate and challenges to posts and comments are allowed , but by other users , not by the platform providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People assume that the internet is by nature “ neutral.
” But it is not .
That neutrality has been enforced by law , specifically the 1996 Communications Decency Act , Section 230 .
There are two parts to this law .
1 ) Online media fall into one of two categories .
Either they are “ platforms , ” or they are “ publishers.
” If they open up comments and posting to all comers , they are a platform .
If they edit , select or deselect user content , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) publishers .
2 ) Publishers are , and always have been , legally liable for what they choose to publish .
Since they have editorial power , if they choose to allow a rumor or libel to go up , they can be sued .
The idea was that platforms , on the other hand , since they were allowing free expression and content to be posted , without editing or cherry-picking , should be free from liability .
They are , in effect , just a platform for commenters of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
They are , by nature , neutral .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
I was hired as internet director for Capital Gazette publishing in Annapolis in 2006 .
We were the publishers of five Maryland newspapers and of the Washingtonian magazine in D.C. One of my jobs was to open up public commenting on the website of our flagship paper , The [ Annapolis ] Capital .
Landmark Publishing , part-owners of The Capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eastern states , made sure that I was properly trained on the legal aspects of running a comment platform .
I was briefed extensively on Section 230 in this way .
At the time , I was told , it was important to recognize that the courts interpreted the law to hold that a newspaper , forum , bulletin board or any other online forum was not legally liable for comments made by other people and allowed by the newspaper only if we did not edit or cherry-pick them .
A couple years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in journalism at Georgetown University in Washington , I attended a seminar held by lawyers on the same thing , Section 230 .
Their statements were similar : Stay neutral .
Let everything go up except what is overtly against rules of decency , threats , etc.
, and you should be safe .
If you start editing , you become liable .
You may get sued .
That was 2008 .
The Gist of the Executive Order Thursday I watched President Trump ’ s speech on the executive order and listened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
His speech was not about a personal peeve with Twitter .
It was about correcting the stretching of the interpretation of current law , Section 230 .
After he spoke , Attorney General Barr made the statement that this order is an effort to get back to the “ original interpretation ” of the law .
He also stated that it is an effort to put some rules around the enforcement of it , which he stated have been “ stretched ” too far .
They were setting forth a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting clearer “ rules ” around the enforcement of the existing law .
Trump : “ The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress , edit , blacklist , shadow-ban , are editorial decisions , pure and simple .
They are editorial decisions .
In those moments , Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint.
” What Happened to the 2006 Interpretation ?
As I mentioned , all the legal people I heard from in the 2006–2008 era seemed to agree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ censor , with the sole exceptions of lewd , libelous or threatening comments .
Even in those areas , the lawyers told us , we had to have clearly posted terms on the platform .
As a caveat , they did mention that this was the “ current interpretation of the law.
” At the time , I did not pick up on the ominous sound of those last words .
Somewhere between 2008 and the present , things got twisted around .
Section 230 started to be taken as a new kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to freedom of speech for the common man and woman ) .
The emphasis shifted from freedom for you and me to use internet platforms without editing or censorship to freedom for large social media platforms from legal liability .
Their view conveniently tries to separate the two sections of the law and apply them individually , emphasizing the freedom of the platform-publisher and diminishing the freedom of the citizen-writer from censorship .
That is turning the intent of original law on its head .
The reason internet platforms were allowed freedom from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which could not afford a legion of lawyers could even exist .
( You may remember — once Facebook was a small platform , as were Twitter and YouTube . )
The law was also put there to ensure that bloggers could exist , since the blog ’ s host site , as a platform , wouldn ’ t be responsible for their content .
By extension , it was put there to ensure that Facebook posters ( my personal blog is there ) and Twitter tweeters , such as you and me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaking freely .
Somehow in the mix , it is now seen by many , especially in media , as a law that frees up social media giants from legal liability , even while allowing them creeping , editorial rights which no newspaper or broadcast media outlet has had for 100 years .
President Trump and the attorney general say it is time to get back to the original intent .
Far from being tyrants threatening to “ sue social media giants and target them , ” they are trying to get social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose for which they exist in the first place .
And for this they are being criticized as government officials petulantly trying to sue successful media companies in spite .
There is a War Going on in Media Now There is a gigantic war going on in media and everyone knows it .
A central battle in that war is the ability and the availability of platforms for regular people to speak out , loud and clear , on all sides of critical issues .
America ’ s founders emphasized again and again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a republic .
They had their public squares — and we have ours .
The social media giants are simply platforms for us , the American people .
They exist so that we can express our viewpoints with free speech and be active in the marketplace of ideas .
If they want to become publishers like more traditional media , they are free to do that .
But when they do it , they need to take their place in the courtrooms with their newspaper and broadcast brethren when they try to manipulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prepared for the mass desertion of followers who will go elsewhere to seek a place to exercise their freedom of speech and opinion .
America has found its voice .
We will not surrender it .
Alan Eason is a writer and digital media and marketing analyst .
He served as webmaster and Inspiration editor for The Stream for its first two years .

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Thursday to help protect the abilities of common people to express themselves freely on social media.
Of course, that is not how the story is being played by many in the media. The Guardian and a host of other newspaper and media outlets are accusing the president of trying to “punish Twitter.” They are casting the story as a Johnny-come-lately personal vendetta by Trump against a social media platform he constantly uses and which he feels turned against him.
CNN ran this headline Thursday: “Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies.” This implies the order is singling out big social media companies for political purposes because they have a decidedly liberal bent.
But Is That What It Really Is?
Ironically, it seems to this internet guy (since the early ’90s) to be just the opposite. The entire executive order and the controversy swirling around it center on the Communications Decency Act of 1996, in particular, Section 230. And though I am not a lawyer, I have something of a history looking at the law in question to back me up. I’ll tell you some of that story shortly.
But first, we need to take two steps back. What is this really about?
Growing Censorship of Conservative Thought on Social Media
Many conservatives, especially those speaking out openly in social media, on YouTube and in other online forums, have watched censorship grow for several years now. Increasingly, large social media platforms have been hiding and even deleting posts that are not following what “they” see as correct thinking. After the 2016 election and its (to them) ‘disastrous’ results, several internet social media giants ostensibly began an increased effort to reign in “fake news” and “Russian trolls” on their platforms. Gradually this has evolved into a creeping, selective censorship of individual views, particularly from conservative posters, few of whom speak Russian and many with solid facts.
Most of those affected are not large media journalists or even new media conservative outlets. They are, rather, common people like you and me who have dared to speak up consistently on public platforms. We experience such things as being thrown into “Facebook Gulag” (affectionately so-called), being “shadow banned” on Twitter, or being demonetized on YouTube. Many of the censored posters have spoken out on subjects that 50 years ago would not have been questioned by anyone, such as pro-life issues, same-sex marriage and the right of business owners to follow their consciences.
For example, in the Twitter case, President Trump was speaking out on Twitter about the dangers inherent in using mass mail-in ballots, hardly debatable even 10 years ago. Twitter put up a “fact check” warning on the post, in essence editorializing on his point.
Therein lies the rub. Twitter, Facebook, Google and other internet platforms have long been assumed to be “neutral platforms.” The idea is to allow all people, small and great, to publish their thoughts and opinions without editorial comment from the platform that hosts the discussion. Of course, debate and challenges to posts and comments are allowed, but by other users, not by the platform providers.
The Difference Between Platforms and Publishers
People assume that the internet is by nature “neutral.” But it is not. That neutrality has been enforced by law, specifically the 1996 Communications Decency Act, Section 230.
There are two parts to this law. 1) Online media fall into one of two categories. Either they are “platforms,” or they are “publishers.” If they open up comments and posting to all comers, they are a platform. If they edit, select or deselect user content, they become (like newspapers and traditional media) publishers. 2) Publishers are, and always have been, legally liable for what they choose to publish. Since they have editorial power, if they choose to allow a rumor or libel to go up, they can be sued.
The idea was that platforms, on the other hand, since they were allowing free expression and content to be posted, without editing or cherry-picking, should be free from liability. They are, in effect, just a platform for commenters of any stripe to use to put their messages out. They are, by nature, neutral.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I was hired as internet director for Capital Gazette publishing in Annapolis in 2006. We were the publishers of five Maryland newspapers and of the Washingtonian magazine in D.C. One of my jobs was to open up public commenting on the website of our flagship paper, The [Annapolis] Capital. Landmark Publishing, part-owners of The Capital and owners of 20+ newspapers in the eastern states, made sure that I was properly trained on the legal aspects of running a comment platform.
I was briefed extensively on Section 230 in this way. At the time, I was told, it was important to recognize that the courts interpreted the law to hold that a newspaper, forum, bulletin board or any other online forum was not legally liable for comments made by other people and allowed by the newspaper only if we did not edit or cherry-pick them. A couple years later, when I was doing post-graduate work in journalism at Georgetown University in Washington, I attended a seminar held by lawyers on the same thing, Section 230. Their statements were similar: Stay neutral. Let everything go up except what is overtly against rules of decency, threats, etc., and you should be safe. If you start editing, you become liable. You may get sued. That was 2008.
The Gist of the Executive Order
Thursday I watched President Trump’s speech on the executive order and listened to Attorney General Barr’s explanation as well.
His speech was not about a personal peeve with Twitter. It was about correcting the stretching of the interpretation of current law, Section 230. After he spoke, Attorney General Barr made the statement that this order is an effort to get back to the “original interpretation” of the law. He also stated that it is an effort to put some rules around the enforcement of it, which he stated have been “stretched” too far. They were setting forth a way for the FCC to look at putting clearer “rules” around the enforcement of the existing law.
Trump: “The choices that Twitter makes when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadow-ban, are editorial decisions, pure and simple. They are editorial decisions. In those moments, Twitter ceases to be a neutral public platform and they become an editor with a viewpoint.”
What Happened to the 2006 Interpretation?
As I mentioned, all the legal people I heard from in the 2006–2008 era seemed to agree. Platforms could not edit and could not censor, with the sole exceptions of lewd, libelous or threatening comments. Even in those areas, the lawyers told us, we had to have clearly posted terms on the platform. As a caveat, they did mention that this was the “current interpretation of the law.” At the time, I did not pick up on the ominous sound of those last words.
Somewhere between 2008 and the present, things got twisted around. Section 230 started to be taken as a new kind of big press freedom (as opposed to freedom of speech for the common man and woman). The emphasis shifted from freedom for you and me to use internet platforms without editing or censorship to freedom for large social media platforms from legal liability. Their view conveniently tries to separate the two sections of the law and apply them individually, emphasizing the freedom of the platform-publisher and diminishing the freedom of the citizen-writer from censorship.
That is turning the intent of original law on its head. The reason internet platforms were allowed freedom from liability was to ensure that neutral platforms which could not afford a legion of lawyers could even exist. (You may remember — once Facebook was a small platform, as were Twitter and YouTube.) The law was also put there to ensure that bloggers could exist, since the blog’s host site, as a platform, wouldn’t be responsible for their content. By extension, it was put there to ensure that Facebook posters (my personal blog is there) and Twitter tweeters, such as you and me, could exist. Without censorship. Speaking freely.
Somehow in the mix, it is now seen by many, especially in media, as a law that frees up social media giants from legal liability, even while allowing them creeping, editorial rights which no newspaper or broadcast media outlet has had for 100 years.
President Trump and the attorney general say it is time to get back to the original intent. Far from being tyrants threatening to “sue social media giants and target them,” they are trying to get social media companies to be accountable to the purpose for which they exist in the first place. And for this they are being criticized as government officials petulantly trying to sue successful media companies in spite.
There is a War Going on in Media Now
There is a gigantic war going on in media and everyone knows it. A central battle in that war is the ability and the availability of platforms for regular people to speak out, loud and clear, on all sides of critical issues. America’s founders emphasized again and again it would take that to survive as a republic. They had their public squares — and we have ours.
The social media giants are simply platforms for us, the American people. They exist so that we can express our viewpoints with free speech and be active in the marketplace of ideas.
If they want to become publishers like more traditional media, they are free to do that. But when they do it, they need to take their place in the courtrooms with their newspaper and broadcast brethren when they try to manipulate the news. And they need to be prepared for the mass desertion of followers who will go elsewhere to seek a place to exercise their freedom of speech and opinion.
America has found its voice. We will not surrender it.
Alan Eason is a writer and digital media and marketing analyst. He served as webmaster and Inspiration editor for The Stream for its first two years.


thestream--2020-05-29--‘Total and Complete Victory’: Illinois Governor Withdraws Worship Restrictions

The governor of Illinois has withdrawn restrictions on religious services amid the coronavirus pandemic following lawsuits from the Thomas More Society .
The nonprofit law firm hailed Democratic Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker ’ s Thursday announcement as a victory after the governor said he would remove mandates on Illinois churches requiring no more than 10 people to be present at services .
The mandates will be replaced by recommendations from the Illinois Department of Health .
“ This guidance does not obligate or encourage places of worship to resume in-person activity , ” health officials said , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services , particularly for those who are vulnerable to COVID-19 , including older adults and those with co-morbidities.
” “ This is a total and complete victory for people of faith , ” said Peter Breen , Thomas More Society vice president and senior counsel , in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ Illinois ’ governor and his administration abused the COVID-19 pandemic to stomp on the religious liberty of the people of Illinois .
By issuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory restrictions , he has handed a complete victory to the churches in Illinois , ” Breen said .
Breen added that “ people of faith across Illinois should breathe a little freer ” and emphasized that fundamental freedom of religion is “ critical to a self-governing democracy.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
“ But the pastors and churches of Illinois should not have had to file repeated lawsuits and state and federal court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
“ Today marks the end of a shameful chapter of discrimination by the government of the Land of Lincoln against houses of worship and religious leaders.
” A spokeswoman from the Illinois Department of Health told The Daily Caller News Foundation Friday that “ religious activities have always been deemed essential during this pandemic , ” and that the updated guidance for the new phase “ is designed to take into account the desire for more worship options , while also trying to keep people safe as possible.
” The Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s order : one on behalf of the Beloved Church , one for Jesus House Restoration Ministries in Urbana , and another representing a group of five Lake County churches and their pastors , according to a Thomas More Society press release .
The firm said that Pritzker has loosened other restrictions as a consequence of the lawsuits filed against him .
After the Beloved Church ’ s lawsuit was filed , Pritzker lifted his restrictions on “ drive-in ” services , the Thomas More Society said .
Following a complaint filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed restrictions on outdoor religious services , it added .
“ Now he has lifted all mandates against how and where the churches and people of Illinois can practice their religion , ” the firm said in a press release .
Pritzker did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ @ @

The governor of Illinois has withdrawn restrictions on religious services amid the coronavirus pandemic following lawsuits from the Thomas More Society.
The nonprofit law firm hailed Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s Thursday announcement as a victory after the governor said he would remove mandates on Illinois churches requiring no more than 10 people to be present at services.
The mandates will be replaced by recommendations from the Illinois Department of Health.
“This guidance does not obligate or encourage places of worship to resume in-person activity,” health officials said, according to NBC Chicago. “Indeed, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services, particularly for those who are vulnerable to COVID-19, including older adults and those with co-morbidities.”
“This is a total and complete victory for people of faith,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society vice president and senior counsel, in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Illinois’ governor and his administration abused the COVID-19 pandemic to stomp on the religious liberty of the people of Illinois. By issuing guidelines only and not the previously announced mandatory restrictions, he has handed a complete victory to the churches in Illinois,” Breen said.
Breen added that “people of faith across Illinois should breathe a little freer” and emphasized that fundamental freedom of religion is “critical to a self-governing democracy.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“But the pastors and churches of Illinois should not have had to file repeated lawsuits and state and federal court to secure their basic rights,” he added. “Today marks the end of a shameful chapter of discrimination by the government of the Land of Lincoln against houses of worship and religious leaders.”
A spokeswoman from the Illinois Department of Health told The Daily Caller News Foundation Friday that “religious activities have always been deemed essential during this pandemic,” and that the updated guidance for the new phase “is designed to take into account the desire for more worship options, while also trying to keep people safe as possible.”
The Thomas More Society filed three lawsuits against Pritzker’s order: one on behalf of the Beloved Church, one for Jesus House Restoration Ministries in Urbana, and another representing a group of five Lake County churches and their pastors, according to a Thomas More Society press release.
The firm said that Pritzker has loosened other restrictions as a consequence of the lawsuits filed against him. After the Beloved Church’s lawsuit was filed, Pritzker lifted his restrictions on “drive-in” services, the Thomas More Society said. Following a complaint filed by Jesus House Restoration Ministries, Pritzker removed restrictions on outdoor religious services, it added.
“Now he has lifted all mandates against how and where the churches and people of Illinois can practice their religion,” the firm said in a press release.
Pritzker did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].