The Mysterious Coronavirus Spreading Worldwide

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

The text today (Friday Downunder) is most apropos.

Friday, September 25

 

Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?—Matt. 22:17.

 

The party followers of Herod who raised this issue hoped that if Jesus denounced the tax, he might be accused of sedition. If Jesus said that taxation was a necessary burden, he could lose the support of his followers. Jesus was careful to remain neutral on the taxation issue....

 

Old (Downunder) Tone

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dustparticle]

This is all twisted and even the friends have twisted this too. We have friends who works in a basically safe environment, yet they don’t want to have no contact with you as a person to person. If you are both negative with the virus then you are both safe. Negative + negative = negative. Friends need to get this into their minds on this.

[M.J.]

1 hour ago, Bob said:

Well, inalienable rights cannot be conferred by the constitution. 

I think this opens a really great question I've been pondering.  The constitution of the United States talks about certain inalienable rights, but perhaps other countries have a different concept. 

 

But as Jehovah's Witnesses.... what are our God-given inalienable rights? Do we have any? What are they? How do we know?

[Bob]

26 minutes ago, M.J. said:

I think this opens a really great question I've been pondering.  The constitution of the United States talks about certain inalienable rights, but perhaps other countries have a different concept. 

 

But as Jehovah's Witnesses.... what are our God-given inalienable rights? Do we have any? What are they? How do we know?

That is extraordinarily INTERESTING to me. Thanks for mentioning this! 

[Ludwika]

50 minutes ago, M.J. said:

I think this opens a really great question I've been pondering.  The constitution of the United States talks about certain inalienable rights, but perhaps other countries have a different concept. 

 

But as Jehovah's Witnesses.... what are our God-given inalienable rights? Do we have any? What are they? How do we know?

We do, we have a constitution :" obey, please, the voice of Jehovah in what I am telling you, and it will go well with you, and you will continue to live". Jer :38:20.

Our inalienable rights are set out in God's word, and also we are guided by the FDS,who are guided by his spirit. The mandatory considerations for us, as explained by the GB, are 1) life is sacred, and 2) love for neighbour. We were also told not to take unnecessary risks. Given what we're seeing with this deadly virus, who could argue with the admonition Jehovah has given us? 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Ludwika

[hatcheckgirl]

I think, as Tony said, the text today sums that question up nicely.

 

Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?—Matt. 22:17.

 

From the comments:

 

But Jesus did not want to get sidetracked, diverted from the much more important issue. That was God’s Kingdom, which would be the real solution. He thereby set the example for all his followers. They should avoid becoming involved in political issues, no matter how right or just a certain cause might seem.

 

Wearing masks as mandated by the government comes under their right to protect the health of its citizens. We all agree on that.  How they do it, well we don’t need to worry about that.  It’s a side issue. We follow Jesus example and not get drawn into the current “my rights!” controversy.

[Lance]

The World is controlled by the “god of this system”...

Getting involved In the rhetoric ... the mental real estate we allow in our intelligent mind to settle on . and our commentary of this old system is really a form of idolatry .. to the “god of this system” ..., he wants our hearts and minds  to be focused  on this garbage heap... 

 

Let Caesar do his thing ...  we are past that ...the old system is going to the garbage dump of time ...and we should be preparing for the new system of things without the” god of this system “  sucking us into his death spiral....or thinking that we need  one more commentary on the garbage that is being thrown out.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Lance

[CHecker]

Absolutely concur, we have so much to do we keep free from the world's rhetoric. 

[M.J.]

Hey all, my question was a sidepoint I've always wondered, nothing to do with politics,  so I'll start it on a different thread.

[Shawnster]

7 hours ago, Bob said:

Well, it IS a violation of your rights to force you to to wear mask, to tell you that you cannot see your family or friends in a group setting, to tell you to 'stay home'. The question is not whether your rights are violated or not - the question is are these violations necessary under the circumstances.

 

Now is this a "plot" to control the masses? Well, I'll say this; when people get power, they don't give it back. It has to be wrestled away from them by the court system here (which itself serves as a check and balance on government power).

Um no.  Mask restrictions are not a violation of any civil rights.  You'll have to provide me a link that details the rights in your particular state to show me where I'm incorrect in this assertation.  From what I've learned over the years, there is no "right" that is being violated by requiring the wearing of masks in public.  Everywhere I know has laws about public exposure, so we've always lived with laws dictating the requirement to wear clothing.  Stores for longer than I can remember had rules requiring shirts and shoes be worn before entering those premises.  Seatbelt laws have been in place for the last 35 years of my life (give or take) so the law requires me to wear something for my own safety when I am driving (or riding) in a car.  The same is true for helmet laws for bikes (motorized and non).  

 

There has neve been a curfew for general movement.  There are no laws prohibiting people from seeing relatives.  Suggestions?  Yes.  Laws?  No.  Public mass gatherings have been restricted but I've not seen anything stating laws were passed prohibiting or limiting what goes on inside someone's private home.  Again, please provide a link that shows where I am incorrect so I can learn.  

 

As to your question "is this a "plot" to control the masses?"  Earlier you stated that I sounded like a right-wing conspiracy theorist because of my reluctance to embrace the initial vaccine if/when it is ready for public use.  I have to ask now who is sounding like a conspiracy theorist?  I would be more willing to believe in some "plot" if these restrictions were only in one country, but they aren't.  Covid-19 is a global pandemic.  It's all around us.  Every country is dealing with this.  Every country is instituting restrictions.  The global nature of the pandemic speaks against the idea that this is some 'plot" by the government to seize control of the population (that they already have complete control over anyway).  The world can't agree on anything, yet they all come together in some Covid-19 conspiracy to control the world?  Sorry, but that doesn't stand up to observable facts and history.

 

As to your comment about governments seizing power they didn't have before... what did they seize?  What power did the government take that it did not already have?  What superior power position is the government in now that it wasn't in prior to Covid-19?  

 

3 hours ago, Bob said:

That's a stretch. Which party's "propaganda" am I echoing? 

A stretch?  Have you not been watching the news lately?  Have you not been on social media of late?  There is one political party whose supporters are espousing the exact same points you are - Masks are an usurping of rights, masks and social distancing and lockdowns are not the best way to fight the virus, the government is overreaching, curfews are silly, the United States should have went with a more Swedish method of fighting Covid-19, and so forth.  

 

Ultimately, this is a political discussion and I need to wash my hands of this conversation.  Facts are facts and the fact is masks, social distancing, and quarantine or curfews are reality and here to stay.  We can complain all we want that they are ineffective or pointless, but that doesn't change the fact that we must comply with these directions.  Debating whether this is the right choice or not or if it's government overreach is a waste of time.  We're Christians.  We obey the superior authorities when their directions do not conflict with God's laws.  We can't change the law.  

 

Some people would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.  

 

 

 

[Bob]

10 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Um no.  Mask restrictions are not a violation of any civil rights.  You'll have to provide me a link that details the rights in your particular state to show me where I'm incorrect in this assertation.  From what I've learned over the years, there is no "right" that is being violated by requiring the wearing of masks in public.  Everywhere I know has laws about public exposure, so we've always lived with laws dictating the requirement to wear clothing. 

Mask are articles of clothing. Requiring masks is the same as requiring hats. Not Constitutional, BUT understandable  

 

Quote

There has neve been a curfew for general movement.  There are no laws prohibiting people from seeing relatives.  Suggestions?  Yes.  Laws?  No.  Public mass gatherings have been restricted but I've not seen anything stating laws were passed prohibiting or limiting what goes on inside someone's private home.  Again, please provide a link that shows where I am incorrect so I can learn.  

We live in different States. 

 

Quote

 Earlier you stated that I sounded like a right-wing conspiracy theorist because of my reluctance to embrace the initial vaccine if/when it is ready for public use. 

I did not.

 

 

Quote

Ultimately, this is a political discussion and I need to wash my hands of this conversation. 

Understood my brother!

Edited September 25, 2020 by Bob

[Shawnster]

9 minutes ago, Bob said:

I did not.

 

Yes, you did.

 

This was in direct response to a comment I made you disagreed with.  Your reply here impressed upon me your belief I was repeating a line of thought that conspiracy theorists had been saying for months.  I took that as if you were saying I was being swayed by conspiracy theories promoted by the media.  If you now are saying that was not what you meant, then take this as a lesson in how your words are taken by others.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Shawnster

[Shawnster]

27 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Ultimately, this is a political discussion and I need to wash my hands of this conversation. 

19 minutes ago, Bob said:

Mask are articles of clothing. Requiring masks is the same as requiring hats. Not Constitutional, BUT understandable  

 

 

 

We watching West Wing.  (My third time, my wife's first).  Just watched the episode from the first season where they confirmed Edward J. Olmos' character as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The other candidate for the position supported the idea that the Constitution did not protect the right to privacy.  The President and staff disagreed.  It's an interesting argument because I would agree that the right to privacy is an inalienable right that the Constitution did not need to explicitly spell out.  

 

You know, I'm kinda sad I said what I did.  I would be interested in debating the mask issue as Constitutional or not purely from an academic standpoint.  You give the impression, though, that you are more vested in this discussion than simple academics.  The real life anti-maskers are making my stomach churn, especially since I have family in that category.  

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Shawnster

[Bob]

11 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Yes, you did.

 

This was in direct response to a comment I made you disagreed with.  Your reply here impressed upon me your belief I was repeating a line of thought that conspiracy theorists had been saying for months.  I took that as if you were saying I was being swayed by conspiracy theories promoted by the media.  If you now are saying that was not what you meant, then take this as a lesson in how your words are taken by others.

 

I did not accuse you of "right wing" conspiracy. I said the MEDIA was promoting it, not YOU. 

 

I know what I said. You misunderstood it.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Bob

[Bob]

3 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

We watching West Wing.  (My third time, my wife's first).  Just watched the episode from the first season where they confirmed Edward J. Olmos' character as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The other candidate for the position supported the idea that the Constitution did not protect the right to privacy.  The President and staff disagreed.  It's an interesting argument because I would agree that the right to privacy is an inalienable right that the Constitution did not need to explicitly spell out.  

 

You know, I'm kinda sad I said what I did.  I would be interested in debating the mask issue as Constitutional or not purely from an academic standpoint.  You give the impression, though, that you are more vested in this discussion than simple academics.  

 

I know about "West Wing" but I never watched it. lol 

 

Me? I have taken an interest in how masks mandates relates to the Constitution. I've never been more interested in it before until now. I am more of an academic now personally.

 

 

[Old]

6 minutes ago, Bob said:

I know about "West Wing" but I never watched it. lol 

 

Me? I have taken an interest in how masks mandates relates to the Constitution. I've never been more interested in it before until now. I am more of an academic now personally.

 

 

So tell us how do mask mandates relate to the constitution. A brief search using Google might help.

[Bob]

Just now, Old said:

So tell us how do mask mandates relate to the constitution. A brief search using Google might help.

I am looking into that. But, as I mentioned, masks are really no different than hats. Its an article of clothing. If the temperature rose and the UV rays were intensified, we could be required to wear hats by law when outside, or pants, or jackets.

 

Its just an academic exercise. I wear masks where required by law.

[CHecker]

Oh dear, my oh my. Are we really discussing this. I thought Jennifer's previous comment was appropriate.  We obey Jehovah. End of discussion. Can we end the debate please. 

Opinions are like noses, we all have one. Let it ride.

[Tbs77]

COVID-19 mutation may be evolving to bypass mask-wearing, hand-washing
By Jackie Salo

September 24, 2020 | 2:23pm

https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/covid-19-mutation-may-be-evolving-to-bypass-masks-hand-washing/amp/

A new COVID-19 mutation appears to be even more contagious, according to a study — and experts say it could be a response by the virus to defeat masks and other social-distancing efforts.

Scientists in a paper published Wednesday identified a new strain of the virus, which accounted for 99.9 percent of cases during the second wave in the Houston, Texas, area, the Washington Post reported.

The paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, said people with the strain, known as the D614G mutation, had higher loads of virus — suggesting it is more contagious.

Though the strain isn’t more deadly, researchers said it appeared to have adapted better to spread among humans.

David Morens, a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the findings suggest that the virus may become more contagious and that this “may have implications for our ability to control it.”

[Old]

4 hours ago, Bob said:

I am looking into that. But, as I mentioned, masks are really no different than hats. Its an article of clothing. If the temperature rose and the UV rays were intensified, we could be required to wear hats by law when outside, or pants, or jackets.

 

Its just an academic exercise. I wear masks where required by law.

Commendable. So why all the static?

[Bob]

5 hours ago, Old said:

Commendable. So why all the static?

No static. We are just talking bro

Edited September 25, 2020 by Bob

[CHecker]

I found this video very informative,  clear and easy to understand.

 

https://videonews.today/doctors-urge-ontario-to-tighten-covid-19-restrictions-222138

[DarinS]

21 hours ago, Bob said:

This is simple. Masks are a type of clothing. The Government forcing you to wear certain types of clothing is a violation of your rights. Its like if the government attempted to force you to wear shorts in the summer, or a coat in the winter. Its you right choose what type of clothing you choose to wear. 

Going to disagree.....of course its just my opinion.....

you have these type restrictions in place when you have a privilege —-not a right

(It is not a right to enter a store or building)

masks are not forced wear at home - in car - at beach etc

 

For example

1 - in the US you can get a drivers license - a privilege  - not a RIGHT

the law says if you need to wear corrective lens for vision - then you must wear them while you drive

still your choice to drive or not

 

 2- in the US you can walk around in a public place - a privilege 

the law says you must wear clothes - cannot be nude

 

3-in the US you can go shopping in stores - a privilege - not a right

the stores post signs that say you must wear shirts and shoes and maybe no eating an drinking while shopping

 

4-in Florida you can attend public school or have home schooling

the laws and rules make students/teachers/parents wear clothes - certain types of clothes and forbid other types

the right is education - not that I can go into a public school dressed or undressed

if you want to go naked or mask-less —- stay home and ‘attend’ home schooling

 

 

You still choose to visit those establishments or public places......

people can still order clothes and groceries from home in there ‘Lazy Boy’ or recliner and never need to step foot in the store nor do they need to wear masks

 

Everyones thoughts are welcome......

[Bob]

6 minutes ago, DarinS said:

Going to disagree.....of course its just my opinion.....

you have these type restrictions in place when you have a privilege —-not a right

(It is not a right to enter a store or building)

masks are not forced wear at home - in car - at beach etc

 

For example

1 - in the US you can get a drivers license - a privilege  - not a RIGHT

the law says if you need to wear corrective lens for vision - then you must wear them while you drive

still your choice to drive or not

 

 2- in the US you can walk around in a public place - a privilege 

the law says you must wear clothes - cannot be nude

 

3-in the US you can go shopping in stores - a privilege - not a right

the stores post signs that say you must wear shirts and shoes and maybe no eating an drinking while shopping

 

4-in Florida you can attend public school or have home schooling

the laws and rules make students/teachers/parents wear clothes - certain types of clothes and forbid other types

the right is education - not that I can go into a public school dressed or undressed

if you want to go naked or mask-less —- stay home and ‘attend’ home schooling

 

 

You still choose to visit those establishments or public places......

people can still order clothes and groceries from home in there ‘Lazy Boy’ or recliner and never need to step foot in the store nor do they need to wear masks

 

Everyones thoughts are welcome......

Definitely respect your opinion!

Edited September 25, 2020 by Bob

[BenJepthah]

1 hour ago, DarinS said:

Going to disagree.....of course its just my opinion.....

you have these type restrictions in place when you have a privilege —-not a right

(It is not a right to enter a store or building)

masks are not forced wear at home - in car - at beach etc

 

For example

1 - in the US you can get a drivers license - a privilege  - not a RIGHT

the law says if you need to wear corrective lens for vision - then you must wear them while you drive

still your choice to drive or not

 

 2- in the US you can walk around in a public place - a privilege 

the law says you must wear clothes - cannot be nude

 

3-in the US you can go shopping in stores - a privilege - not a right

the stores post signs that say you must wear shirts and shoes and maybe no eating an drinking while shopping

 

4-in Florida you can attend public school or have home schooling

the laws and rules make students/teachers/parents wear clothes - certain types of clothes and forbid other types

the right is education - not that I can go into a public school dressed or undressed

if you want to go naked or mask-less —- stay home and ‘attend’ home schooling

 

 

You still choose to visit those establishments or public places......

people can still order clothes and groceries from home in there ‘Lazy Boy’ or recliner and never need to step foot in the store nor do they need to wear masks

 

Everyones thoughts are welcome......

Your opinion is welcome. But, consider what this is touching upon. 
    Equal access under law.  
 Do these things therefore give the US or Stat Governments ( or a privately owned business) the power to enforce say : the wearing of a beard for men? Or maybe bells on the hemline for women? To cede this authority over to the government when it is not explicitly given is a dangerous precedent.