L.A. County and Grace Community Church Continue Dispute in Court Today

Today, L.A. County and Grace Community Church met in court today in the courtroom of Judge Mitchell Beckloff in their dispute over indoor worship services. The L.A. Country Health Order forbids indoor worship but is finding it difficult to enforce since Grace will not abide by it.

According to an article in today’s LA Daily News, a decision may not come for several days. According to the report, the arguments pertained to a compelling state interest to regulate religion versus the freedom of religious bodies to control their practices.

 

23 thoughts on “L.A. County and Grace Community Church Continue Dispute in Court Today”

  1. Earlier, wasn’t he claiming his former associates had abandoned him. i checked and pretty much all those who were with him before have followed him into this conspiracy nonsense. He also has picked up support from the Televandals and the Nazis on Bitchute, so there’s that.

  2. “WELCOME BACK MY FRIENDS
    TO THE SHOW THAT NEVER ENDS…”
    — Emerson Lake & Palmer, “Karn Evil Nine”

  3. One good thing: this lot are taken up with the Great Car Park Controversy (not that this is controversial for many of us!), and so will have less time, energy and resources to squeak, squawk and scream about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms … (I looked them up and found they spent a whole month in 2016 ranting on about gays.)

  4. Government is loathe to interfere in religious practice- often refusing to act until danger is unique and present (like Christian Science members refusing to use MD’s to treat their sick children- or acting with force to end the FLDS and prosecute Warren Jeffs).

  5. If the risk was only to those in attendance at the church, that would be one thing, but when public health is in danger, then allowing private bodies, even under the auspices of religious worship, to congregate in a manner that clearly puts everyone who is in close contact with them for days after at risk is unconscionable.

    The most disgraceful thing about GCC’s behavior is that it’s only because of the sacrifice of those who have abided by the lockdowns and social distancing guidelines over the last five months that their congregation can even meet without a high risk of most of them catching the virus. They’re spitting in the face of everyone in their community.

    1. “spitting in the face of everyone” is an accurate description of John MacArthur’s self-serving theology in action.

      1. Make that “spitting in the face of the HEATHEN” and making long prayers for justification.

    2. Remember that we have long known that most people are not at serious risk. That was the whole point of the 6% controversy. There was a whole bunch of hullabaloo over it from the usual suspects on both sides, but it was an easily applicable data point. From the early days, it was known that the greatest risk was to people in a narrow category of health situations. The general public was never at great risk. Those at risk could have been easily protected. There is evidence that the lockdowns did not bring about any appreciable difference in outcomes; in the years to come that evidence will be further studied and debated. But the reality is that gathering does not “clearly put everyone who is in close contact with them for days at risk.”

      That doesn’t fit a political narrative or a religious one but it is reality.

      1. That was the whole point of the 6% controversy.

        There is no controversy. MacArthur is promoting a self-serving conspiracy theory. “There is no pandemic” is just one of several lies packed into his short statement about the pandemic.

        From the early days, it was known that the greatest risk was to people in a narrow category of health situations. The general public was never at great risk.

        Narrow? It’s estimated that as many as 45% of the US population has at least one of the six main comorbidities for Covid-19 — cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, asthma, hypertension, and cancer (excluding skin cancer), and that’s not even counting age, obesity, and anyone else who has a compromised immune system. If that’s not the general public, I don’t know what is.

        Those at risk could have been easily protected.

        Yes, social distancing, face masks, and restricting large gatherings to prevent the virus from circulating widely. Exactly what health officials have been saying for months all around the world.

        There is evidence that the lockdowns did not bring about any appreciable difference in outcomes

        Seriously? There is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns and the other measures have worked. The fact that in some places they ended the lockdowns too early and too fast and then found themselves in the middle of an outbreak (Texas, Florida, etc.) only reinforces that.

        But the reality is that gathering does not “clearly put everyone who is in close contact with them for days at risk.”

        No doubt that’s what the people who went to the Maine wedding in August flouting the pandemic restrictions thought too, yet now three people who didn’t even go near the wedding are dead because of it.

        I know someone who has a cousin who survived her battle with Covid-19 but it destroyed her kidneys, and she will be on dialysis for the rest of her life. There are growing reports of mild cases resulting in heart damage that could be permanent, even among young people. The official death toll is almost certainly a significant undercount, with preliminary studies confirming that the excess death rate is higher than that in many parts of the world, including the USA.

        That’s the reality — MacArthur’s statement on Covid did nothing but help propagate a dangerous conspiracy theory that will end up killing people, and not just in his own community.

        1. Thanks, Tacitus.

          There actually was a controversy which you may not be aware of because the narrowness of your news choices. The controversy was over what exactly the 6% meant. Many, like MacArthur, wrongly argued that only 6% died from COVID and therefore it wasn’t serious. That was a false understanding and created controversy when people said it because there were those who, like many here, did not read beyond their own viewpoint. They were looking for confirmation, not information. It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, though we should acknowledge that “conspiracy theory” is a label people often attach to arguments they would rather not have to answer. It was just stupid for MacArthur to say that. In fact, much of what MacArthur has done has been stupid.

          As for the general public, no, they were not at risk. Yes, about 45% have those comorbidities which is about 150,000,000 or so. But only 180,000 died. So why the vast disparity? That seems to have gone totally unnoticed by you. The answer is because the general public, even with comorbidities, was not in great danger. It’s a simple math problem.

          As for whether lockdowns work. google it and you will see there is significant evidence that they don’t. That is not the same as saying that there is no evidence that they do. It is simply to point out the reality that there is evidence on both sides. It is far from overwhelming. It is at best disputed. I realize that isn’t as dramatic as you would like it to be but it has the added benefit of being truthful, something greatly lost in this age. People are all too willing to overlook the collateral damage of the lockdowns as well.

          As for the death rate, on this statement you are simply wrong. The death rate is much lower than has been promoted simply because the number of people infected is much higher than was stated early on. As more people get tested, we find that more people had it, but the death numbers remain the same. In fact, the likelihood is that the number of infections is understated by multiples ranging from 2 to 10 because in the early days people were only tested in hospitals and most never went. My wife likely had it before it was being tested for. She was as sick as I have seen her in 30 years with all the symptoms (body aches, fever, etc.). She ended up admitted to the hospital for four days in February. Again, it’s a simple math problem. It’s not sexy but it tells the truth.

          Back in February, the CDC, NIH, and NIAID said that there in the end, this virus may be no worse than a severe flu. Here is an article worth your time because it explains some things that are missing (as many other articles do): https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/04/covid-why-terminology-really-matters.

          There are two sides to this: The medical side and the math side. On the medical side, this is very clearly a serious disease that kills people and gives other people severe sickness with sometimes ongoing conditions. On the math side, it does not affect a huge percentage of people and a great many who get it do not get it severely or with ongoing conditions.

          So which should win: the medicine or the math?

          With all your talk of conspiracy theories, have you considered that perhaps you are the one who has bought into and is spreading conspiracy theories? The actual evidence does not support you completely on this. And there is no bigger problem in our society and civil discourse than people who are unwilling to tell the truth in acknowledging that there is another side to the story.

          1. With all your talk of conspiracy theories, have you considered that
            perhaps you are the one who has bought into and is spreading conspiracy
            theories?

            Of course not.
            When YOU’re the one talking of conspiracy theories, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”, it’s Absolute Utter TRVTH!!!!!

        1. The risk isn’t theoretical. It also isn’t great for most people. Again, it’s just a math problem to solve. To say that 40% have comorbidities does not mean that 40% are at serious risk. Most, as statistics indicate, are not.

          The wedding situation is not entirely concrete. There are other explanations for infections. Contact tracing is not a reliable way to handle the situation. Too many variables. Most people have way too many connections to make that meaningful. Again, I realize that’s not good politics, but it has the added benefit of being true.

      4. Lockdowns were/are primarily about ‘flattening the curve’ (and not about altering the clinical outcome for a particular person) so that healthcare services are not (too) overwhelmed. Furthermore, while most people are not at risk of death (although significant numbers could suffer long term damage to lungs if they contract the disease), those people are more likely to pass the virus onto those who are at high risk if appropriate disciplines are not observed.

        I believe that I have a something of a civic duty to avoid becoming infected if I can. A hospital bed not needed by me would be available for someone else who might need it. I can still work and pay my dues to society while observing disciplines aimed at protecting myself and others. (I do understand that some people are less able to ‘distance’ as they perform their jobs and duties. Very well – let’s make sure there is a hospital bed for them should they require it!)

        The reality is that we need a moral narrative much more than we need a political or religious one.

        1. Yes, it was originally about flattening the curve, and we did that. Then it became about finding a vaccine. I think we should all avoid being infected if we can. That’s not really a civic duty. It’s just good personal care.

          But a good number of people can’t work under these conditions. And they and their families are suffering. They have lost much and there is no end in sight for some.

          You can’t really separate a moral narrative from a religious one. But political narratives are the worst of all. They are, however, the most popular.

  6. I think this is a more honest statement: “…the arguments pertained to a compelling state interest to regulate religion the congregation of folks in the time of pestilence versus the freedom of religious bodies to control their practices.”

    But thanks for the update!

      1. You can’t fix stupid; but sometimes, it will fix itself. I hope the fix isn’t permanent for too many of those people.

  7. I think this is a more honest statement: “…the arguments pertained to a compelling state interest to regulate religion the congregation of folks in the time of pestilence versus the freedom of religious bodies to control their practices.”

    But thanks for the update!

Comments are closed.