Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: NC church service linked to coronavirus cluster
Source:
WITN
URL Source: https://www.witn.com/content/news/N ... navirus-cluster-569311991.html
Published: Apr 2, 2020
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2020-04-05 08:10:37 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 2565
Comments: 27
NC church service linked to coronavirus cluster North Carolina public health officials said Monday that "multiple cases" of coronavirus have been linked to a church event a week ago at a Durham hotel.
North Carolina public health officials say "multiple" cases of COVID-19 have been traced back to a church event held at a Durham hotel after social distancing orders were in place. (Image: NBC News Channel/WRAL) The March 22 event at Millennium Hotel Durham was hosted by Faith Assembly Christian Center.
At the time, Governor Roy Cooper had banned all gatherings of 100 or more people in North Carolina. That has since been replaced by stay-at-home orders in Durham and statewide that prohibit all gatherings of 10 or more people to limit the spread of the virus.
Faith Assembly officials couldn't be reached Monday or Tuesday for comment. They didn't respond to questions posed on social media, and the church's phone wasn’t taking any messages.
Durham County health officials declined to provide details on how many people might have attended the event, how many were tested and how many positive tests came back.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress ...
#2. To: Gatlin (#0)
“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood.
It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”
-Sam Adams
“... or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”
#3. To: Gatlin (#0)
You have demonstrated that you are a weak coward of a man.
You don't respect the constitution you are its enemy.
You are sissy like in your need to be protected by the state.
We should be prudent and careful. But you would destroy our constitution with your wimpish attitude of a weakling.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Yes Sir, that is duly noted as being correct = You got that right. But as an intelligent and logical person, you should take in mind the complex role of the Supreme Court in our system of government. When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken. So, when the government issues an order that has not been heretofore deemed unconstitutional, that that order is legal until such time SCOTUS may declared it unconstitutional. Has SCOTUS declared any of these closure laws unconstitutional? Let me know if you find they have … Respectfully … "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress ...
#5. To: A K A Stone (#2)
It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” -Sam Adams Yep, that is what “Ole Sam” wrote. You got that right too. Respectfully … “The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood.
#6. To: Gatlin (#4)
So, when the government issues an order that has not been heretofore deemed unconstitutional, that that order is legal until such time SCOTUS may declared it unconstitutional.
NO. The order was alwasy illegal they just got around to documenting it.
So they could pass a law that said kill everyone in nursing homes. Then according to you it wold be legal until the Supreme court said no. Stupid.
#7. To: Gatlin, loves Big Stupid Global Nanny State Tyranny (#4)
NWO Global Police State Tyranny
You hate Americans, because we're free.
You're statist scum. Flock off, Canary!
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
But you got all of this completely wrong … A weakness can be a strength. When I find that I may have stepped into weaknesses – I know It is then that God can make His power, sovereignty, and love known even more. It has been said that: True strength is the presence of weakness and the acknowledgement of God. What do you do when you find that you have stepped into weakness? I must say that there’s little more frustrating than somebody challenging you prove yourself to him. It always feels uncomfortable and icky when someone does this . So, when I prove myself – Then what? You will either dismiss my proof or say that’s not a good enough proof for you. In whatever I say or do, you will forever inherently feel you have asserted your superiority. That is simply a malicious charge. I spent 24 years on active military duty serving in 12 ranks as both an enlisted man and a commissioned officer in order to insure you have the continuing freedom to be here today to make this malicious charge. It is with deeply felt courtesy that I now ask of you – What duty have you performed in the service of our great nation to protect and defend the constitution? I humbly await your answer … And to whom will you turn in your hour of need when you desperately feel need protection? Yes, most definitely – We all should. You got that part right. How, pray tell, that if I were indeed to have a “wimpish attitude” – exactly how can any “wimpish attitude” willfully destroy our constitution? Again, I await your most intelligently expressed answer … Respectfully … You have demonstrated that you are a weak coward of a man.
You don't respect the constitution you are its enemy.
You are sissy like in your need to be protected by the state.
We should be prudent and careful.
But you would destroy our constitution with your wimpish attitude of a weakling.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#6) (Edited)
NO. The order was alwasy illegal they just got around to documenting it. “Sez” who – You? Your personal opinion – bluntly speaking – really doesn’t mean shit to me. And that is what you are stating, only your personal opinion. Cite case law to back up your biased personal opinion and I will gladly and humbly agree with you. Can you? Oh dear God, man – Have you gone completely bonkers with expressing that premise? Oh – “Never mind” … Respectfully … So, when the government issues an order that has not been heretofore deemed unconstitutional, that that order is legal until such time SCOTUS may declared it unconstitutional.
So they could pass a law that said kill everyone in nursing homes. Then according to you it wold be legal until the Supreme court said no. Stupid.
#10. To: Gatlin (#9)
Dumb ass. The right to peacefully assemble is iron clad constitutional law. If you are afraid stay in your cave.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
That is correct. I believe we have already agreed on this. The question you ever so blindly continue to overlook is: Who gets to decide if the “law” is “constitutional” and that it must be obeyed. Ahem – I will go ahead and answer that question for you. It is SCOTUS. I am not afraid to come out and kick your ass each time you make these irrational statements. You really need to do some learning. In doing so, you will find that learning is a simple process of acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences. Try it – you may just like it … Respectfully … The right to peacefully assemble is iron clad constitutional law.
… you are afraid stay in your cave.
#12. To: Gatlin (#11)
The question you ever so blindly continue to overlook is: Who gets to decide if the “law” is “constitutional” and that it must be obeyed.Ahem – I will go ahead and answer that question for you.
It is SCOTUS.
Your answer isn't found in the constitution. So it is just an opinion.
Read it and think for yourself instead of having someone who is probably lying telling you.
Since you are weak and senile. Let me give you a few words so you can learn what they mean. That way if the Supreme court makes a decision you can see if they are lying or issuing a correct decision based on the words passed into law.
No- adverb 1. not at all; to no extent. "they were no more able to perform the task than I was"
Assemble - verb 1. (of people) gather together in one place for a common purpose.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#10)
If you are afraid stay in your cave.
Stop - you'll make it cry.
Cowardice disgusts me.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#14. To: Gatlin (#11)
I am not afraid to come out and kick your ass each time you make these irrational statements.
You don't even know what no means. So until you learn that like my kids did when they were 2 you have nothing to add to the conversation.
#15. To: Deckard (#13)
I think churches should consider closing. I just don't think the government should be the ones to force them to since they lack that power. It will set a terrible precedent.
Say fewer people die of this than the flu. Then that would mean they would be able to lock us down for the flu.
I'm not saying this will or will not be worse in death totals then the flu. I actually think it will cause more deaths.
#16. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#14)
I do have a question to add to the conversation. Riddle me this - with you as an exalted constitutional expert who ever so proudly continues to believe he has expertise in the constitution's text: If these closure directives are so unconstitutional as you claim them to be, then why isn’t Deckard’s beloved “Oath Keepers” called to artms and out there “flamboyantly having at it?” Huh? Has anyone heard from them? *** crickets *** … you have nothing to add to the conversation.
#17. To: Gatlin (#16)
That was a non essential comment.
#18. To: Gatlin (#16)
twitter.com/oathkeepers/status/1233984996790149121
#19. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#13)
|
More importantly does bravery give you the courageouse behavior and sense of character to go to church today and sit shoulder to shoulder with all those people in the pew, to shake hands with most and hug many while touching the collection plate as it is passed? Do you have such “bravery” … I am still waiting for this previously posted question to you. And I fully realize that I shall probably never get one …
|
#20. To: Gatlin, grandisland (#19)
I wonder what Grandisland thinks.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#18) (Edited)
| From your link:
It is truly amazing, Stone – What shit you can continue to step in. Relaying their solicitation for money. Are you donating?
|
#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)
|
We will probably never know what GI thinks. But I will gladly tell you what I think. I think you pissed him off so much for reasons he stated, that we shall never hear from him again. He did tell me by email that he doesn’t even lurk here. Great job Stone – You have a knack for doing that to your posters. Which should come as no surprise to anyone ..
|
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
I think you pissed him off so much
Yeah I quoted him saying he would kill the neighbors cat. Sick.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Yeah I quoted him saying he would kill the neighbors cat. Sick. That was only a part of it. Uh … Refresh me on what you have said many times about “queers.” Or need I go look it up – Should I desire to really post it here. Respectfully … I think you pissed him off so much
#25. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Your opinion – Which of course you have a right to submit. As I also have a right to consider it and reject it as an unfounded opinion. Respectfully … That was a non essential comment.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Ahem: Is the US Air Force unconstitutional since it DEFINITELY is not mentioned in the consgtitution? According to the way you look at things, what are we to just see those as? Unconstitutional – Huh? You presume a lot of things about the Constitution. Some are true, some are not. I am going to list some things and you tell me if they are in the constitution or not: So, if none of these are mentioned in the constitution – and they definitely are not – Then are they all unconstitutional? I will be most interested to learn of your answer. Respectfully … Your answer isn't found in the constitution. So it is just an opinion.
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense — the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military. Thanks to James Severin for the idea.
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
#27. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#15)
I actually think it will cause more deaths.
We'll never get an accurate count of who would have died anyway, absent the coronavirus.
The books have been cooked by the Big Pharma/Fake News MIC.
IMO
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]