John MacArthur Plans to Hold Church in Defiance of Court Injunction; Keeps Using Wrong COVID-19 Stats

On Fox News Thursday night, John MacArthur said he is planning to have church on Sunday despite the California Superior Court preliminary injunction barring indoor church. Watch:

In addition to appearing to promise to defy the court order, he again said only .01% of Californians have had COVID-19.

A statistic: One one hundredth of one percent of Californians have COVID, that’s the number and yet no one in the entire state of California is allowed to go inside a church. Doesn’t make sense.

As of September 11, California has 755,714 COVID-19 cases. With a population of just under 40-million, 1.9% of Californians have COVID-19. I have twice asked the public relations firm representing Grace for the source of MacArthur’s misinformation but with no reply.

Click here for all posts on L.A. County v. Grace Community Church

 

180 thoughts on “John MacArthur Plans to Hold Church in Defiance of Court Injunction; Keeps Using Wrong COVID-19 Stats”

    1. Not sure why you’re posting a tweet that'[s not only tone deaf, stupid, but is also utterly wrongheaded.

      A thousand people are dying every day, even with all the face masks, social distancing, telecommuting, severe restrictions on public gatherings, bars, and restaurants. Imagine how much worse it would be if people were not taking any of those measures to avoid infection. 2 million dead instead of 200,000 is the usual estimate.

      An effective vaccine would allow life to return to normal, and free the sick and elderly from months of isolation and fear. To joke about it is disgusting, but that’s par for the course with that twitter account.

    1. The beauty is that the church is still on the hook for the $112,750 penalty. They still have to pay and if they don’t can you say lien on property? I knew you could.

        1. CM never preached about love. S/He merely pointed out the lack of it in your posts and how your behaviour is contrary to what jesus actually taught.

          1. Nope.

            To quote Bill Maher:

            “I think Jesus had a lot of good things to say, I just wish more christians followed what he said.”

          2. I’ve seen a lot of atheists exhibit many more “christian” behaviours (ex. helping the poor, kindness to others, etc) than your “faithful preacher”

          3. And do you believe your behaviour and the way you “exemplify” christianity will encourage people to “get saved”?

      1. No problem with being $112k in the hole.
        “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! OR GAWD WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE(TM)!”

  1. Proving once again that White Evangelical Christianity is nothing more than a nihilistic Death Cult. ??

      1. Maybe not “good” (given that Black Evangelicals have a rather poor record when it comes to relations with the LGBTQ+ community), but certainly “somewhat slightly less bad” since, as Fred Clark over at “The Slacktivist” ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/ ) points out, White Evangelicalism was pretty much founded on the premise that chattel slavery (and the oppression necessary to maintain it) of Black people was both a *good* and *Godly* thing.

  2. does anyone have any updates on this matter? Assuming MacArthur had indoor services on Sunday has the county imposed any fines on him? have any charges been filed for his ignoring the court orders?

  3. does anyone have any updates on this matter? Assuming MacArthur had indoor services on Sunday has the county imposed any fines on him? have any charges been filed for his ignoring the court orders?

        1. I guess ignoring the bit about “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” by not wearing a mask and social distancing to reduce the.spread of the virus really shows that you are obeying the Lord.

          1. I’m sure MacArthur might say something like….

            “Well that love your neighbor thing was part of the prior dispensation”

        2. and you believe your lord is telling you to ignore the law and risk spreading a potentially deadly disease to innocent victims?

          1. Which one?
            Abnoba, Aeracura, Aine, Aje, Alfar, Amaterasu, An, Anahit, Anat, Andarta, Andrasta, Angus mama, Anhur, Anshar, Anu, Anu, Anubis, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apollo, Apsu, Aramazd, Arduinna, Ares, Arianrhod, Arnemetia, Artemis, Arubani, Asgard, Asherah, Ashur, Astarte , Astghik, Ataegina, Athena, Attis, Atum, Aveta, Baal, Babalu-Aye’, Babd, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Belobog, Benzaiten, Bes, Beyla, Bil, Bishamonten, Black Shuck, Black Annis, Blodeuwedd, Boann, Bragi, brahma, bran the blessed , Brigid, Byggvir, Caer, Cailleach, Cannon, Ceres, Ceridwen, Chernobog, Cupid, Cybele, Dagon, Dagr, Daikoku, Damkina, dana , Danu, Demeter, Diana Triformis, Diana, Dionysus, Disir, Ea, Ebisu, Eir, El, El-Gabal, El. Cthulhu , Elegua, Elves, Endovelicus, Endovelicus, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Eostre, Epona, Ereshkigal, Eris, Fenrir, Forseti, Freyja, Freyr, Frigg, Frigga, Fukurokuju, Gaia, Geb, Greine, Guan Yin, Hadad, Hades, Haldi, Hapi, Hathor, Hecate, Heget, Heimdall, Hel, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Herne, Hestia, Hoenir, Holda, Horus, Hotei, Hretha, Idunn, Iemanja, Imhotep, Inanna, Inari, Indibog, Inti, Ishtar, Isis, Isis, Izanagi, Izanami, Jack in the Green, Janus, Jord, Juno, Jupiter, Jurojin, Kanaloa , Kane , Khepry, Khnum, Khonsu, Kingu, Kishar, Kon, Kothar-Wa-Khasis, Ku , Liban, Lofn, Loki, Lono , Lugh longhand , Ma’at, Maahes, Maia, Mama Quilla, Mama Cocha, Manannan, manawyddan , Manco Capac, Mani, Marduk, Mars, Math ap Mathonwy , Maui , Menhit, Mercury, Mihr, Min, Minerva, Mithras, Mitra/Mithra, Moloch, Mont, Morana, Morpheus, Morrigan, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nane, Nanna, Naunet, Nehalennia, Neith, Nephthys, Neptune, Nergal, Nerthus, Nikkal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Ninurta, nissyen , Njord, Norns, Nott, Nut, Obatala, Ochosi, Odin, Ogun, Osain, Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Pachacamac, Pan, Pele , Pluto, Plutus, Poseidon, Proserpina, Ptah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Ran, Rhiannon, Runesocesius, Ryan Reynolds, Saga, Sango, Saxnot, Sekhmnet, Selene, Sequana, Set, Shamash, Shef, Shiva, Shu, Sif, Sin, Siofn, Sirona, Skadi, Snotra, Sobek, Sol Invictus, Sol, Sul, Suleviae, Sulis, Susanoo, Syn, Tefnut, Tengu, Thanatos, the Dagda Mor , The Aten, The Shichifukujin, Thor, Thoth, Thunor, Tiamat, Tir, Tir, Tlaloc, Tsai Shen Yeh, Tsovinar, Tsukiyomi, Tyr, Ull, Uranus, Utu, Vahagn, Vali, Var, Venus, Vesta, Vidar, Viracocha, Vishnu, Vor, Vulcan, Weyland, Woden, Xango , Xochiquetzal, Yam, Yareha, Yemoja, Zaramama, Zeus, Zev,

          2. You are the one supporting MacArthur violating the law and putting people at risk, Not me.

            And once again, I dont have a lord.

          3. I guess ignoring the bit about “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” by not wearing a mask and social distancing to reduce the.spread of the virus really shows that you are obeying the Lord.

        3. So if Covid-19 had been as virulent as the Black Death, with a 50% death rate, and killing people within 24 hours of manifesting symptoms, you would still be attending indoor services every Sunday with the minimum of precautions, because that’s what the Lord commands?

          I’m skeptical.

        1. So a fellow grifter on the GCC gravy train then? Suckling on John MacArthur’s teat there?

          So that explains why are trolling on this site then. While you are here maybe I should ask you and to ask your buddy Phil Johnson if either of you have sent any letters to his Pyro buddy / prison inmate / convicted pedophile Tom Chantry? Maybe Phil can ask Tom the chomo how he likes getting spanked and worked over like he did those children.

          1. Not to mention that John Macarthur helped give birth to a cultist by the name of Darwin Fish (Yes, that’s his real name) Type in John MacArthur and Darwin Fish for more info.

  4. Interesting to read all these comments … most of you really love the government and hate God dont you? Sad. The rest of us will pray for you.

        1. Hardly. But then you would not know anything about the Constitution anyway. But unlike you, I believe the Constitution and the principles of federalism are equal opportunity offenders, which means many of your sacred cows are antithetical to the Constitution.

    1. Would that be the imprecatory prayer some of you right-wing conspiracy theorist anti-government types are so fond of, because otherwise, you don’t seem to be the praying type.

    2. Would that be the imprecatory prayer some of you right-wing conspiracy theorist anti-government types are so fond of, because otherwise, you don’t seem to be the praying type.

      1. “Imprecatory prayer” as in “putting a Hex on The Enemy”?

        “O GREAT CHEMOSH! O GREAT BA’AL! BRING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION DOWN UPON THESE MY ENEMIES!”
        — some Fifties “Bible Movie”; that’s the only scene I remember

        1. Yup — when President Obama was in the White House, Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, California, used to pray one regularly in the hopes that God would kill Obama at his request. Other right-wing idiots have done the same thing, usually targeting Democratic officials, or people they feel wronged by.

        2. Yup — when President Obama was in the White House, Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, California, used to pray one regularly in the hopes that God would kill Obama at his request. Other right-wing idiots have done the same thing, usually targeting Democratic officials, or people they feel wronged by.

          1. He already caught Covid-19 two weeks ago, apparently. Someone found him collapsed on the floor and he was diagnosed with blood clots and a mini-stroke along with coronavirus. Yes, he’s a Trump supporter and coronavirus denier and his church is not requiring masks or social distancing in their services, though their numbers are so small it’s probably they don’t violate the capacity restrictions. I guess he’s a believer now, not that I would expect anything to change.

            Drake was sent to a nursing home for isolation and recovery, and is still there apparently.

          2. Blood clots and stroke are a known (if uncommon) effect of COVID. The virus causes vascular inflammation resulting in mini-clots within the capillaries all over the body. This includes “COVID toes”, mini-strokes, long tail heart damage, and is an additional factor in respiratory distress.

            My source on this is MedCram, a reputable medical lecture website with a YouTube channel. Search YouTube for “medcram” or “medcram coronavirus” to bring up the lectures (over 100 on the subject and counting). Their lectures can get pretty technical; many of their coronavirus lectures explain the effects down to the molecular/biochemical level.

          3. Yeah, he’s lucky to be alive. He was on heart medication and aspirin and the doctors told him that’s what saved his life. Score one for medical science, I guess.

            He’s a complicated fella. His politics are far right and very conspiracy theory based, but he’s been opening up his church to the homeless for years, and even set up homeless shelter on the premises for several years, though I believe that came to an end when the city inspectors condemned the building as unsafe for habitation (with cause) and he lost the ensuing court battle with the city.

            So while he’s undoubtedly crazy and deeply into right wing conspiracy thinking, at least he’s personally been helping feed and clothe the homeless in his neighborhood, which is more than can be said for many other evangelical pastors living high on the hog.

          4. New Apostolic Reformation (aka the Pagan Temple Screamers) claim credit for killing Mother Teresa through imprecatory prayer.

    3. Being agnostic, I can hardly hate what I doubt exists. But I have read the Bible enough to know that Jesus said to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21), and “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1). It strikes me that John MacArthur, in ignoring California’s COVID-19 directives, is doing neither of these things. As for the “. . .and unto God the things that are God’s,” plenty of other churches have figured out ways to worship that don’t involve closed buildings and pews packed with maskless people. MacArthur’s personal pride is getting in the way of his role as a minister of the Gospel.

  5. According to Worldometers there is a total of 372,632 Active Corona 19 cases in California right now.

    California with a population of 39.78 million.

    Would mean that .94% of Californians have Covid-19 today.

  6. We will know in about 3 hours what happens at GCC. Power cut? Deputies enter and arrest MacArthur?

    I really hope the power is cut, so he can’t ham it up in front of the cameras.

    Though a pastor being arrested at his pulpit for defying pandemic health rules is nothing new:

    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/03/20/coronavirus-pastor-arrested-holding-church-during-spanish-flu/2874182001/

    There were a number of cases during the Spanish Flu pandemic.

      1. Fines were part of it as well. But again, there is also precedent for arresting people who defy health protocols during a pandemic. Including pastors who refuse in the middle of their sermon.

        Considering both the Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902), if GCC trues to appeal to SCOTUS they will very likely lose (and it is doubtful they will even grant cert).

          1. I suspect right now, there will be fines. Which of course, will have to be paid. IF they refuse, then well then things get interesting. What happens if you don’t pay a fine and the court costs for a traffic ticket (in addition to have your license suspended)? You do realize a warrant can be issued for your arrest for non-payment of said fines?

            Second, GCC is already losing a lot of its parking 01 OCT 2020, so it is possible harsher sanctions other than fines will wait until after that. I suspect LA County will block the entrances to the parking lots to prevent illegal parking come Oct 1st. And of course, enforcing all parking laws in the immediate area. If GCC members start blocking driveways in the nearby neighborhood, that will piss people off even more and they won’t be pissed at LA County. Expect more GCC members to get their cars impounded and towed (or booted). But I am sure the GCC leadership doesn’t really give a s*it, since they don’t live anywhere near the church.

            There is no version of this where MacArthur comes out on top. PERIOD.

          2. What if MacArthur is saved despite TULIP and dies of Covid and goes to heaven before he has to pay fines or deal with parking?

          3. Then his estate will have to pay the fines. Of course if he croaks and dies, I suspect GCC will fade away after a few years, much like the remnants of the People’s Temple who did not die in Guyana.

          4. Or surviving Heaven’s Gaters (Bo-Peepers).
            Cults rarely survive the death of their founders. Few Joseph Smiths are succeeded by a Brigham Young who can turn the thing into a long-term self-sustaining system.

    1. and the total cannot be known due to fraudulent reporting of cases and the fraudulent, inaccurate & unverified Covid-19 test that is now more political than medical–McArthur may reporting the truth…

      1. He’s not. He’s lying. I read the judge’s memo, and MacArthur’s lawyers were throwing everything at the wall and trying to get something, anything to stick. They first went with the obvious sins and said strip clubs were open. (They aren’t.) Oh and cannabis dispensaries (open, but not like a church, you’re not sitting in a cannabis dispensary for 1.5 hours next to other unmasked people). Then they tried George Floyd protests, disregarding that those were on the fly and likely not permitted. Finally, they said COSTCO IS OPEN, why not us? Well, Costco is different from churches, movie theatres and concert venues. Really, you ought to read what the judge said, here’s the link: /wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20stcv30695-Ruling-on-order-granting-PI41.pdf

        1. I seem to recall that Costco and other have mandatory masking as well as limited capacity and the like. Something GCC refused to do.

          1. Yeah. “Anti-Mask Karen” or “Anti-Mask Fights” bring up a LOT of video examples on YouTube, and some of the classic ones are footage from CostCo. Hard to do a deed in the dark when everyone has a cameraphone.

      1. Speaking of liars, it seems I am banned from WW because I dared call out WB on his BS about the Laws of Relativity on a WW thread. I guess Dee and Deb don’t give a sh*t about truth unless it involves church abuse. So f*ck em.

  7. Ask a judge to issue a warrant for MacArthur’s arrest conditioned on the start of the service

    Then have the LA County Sheriff’s Department execute the warrant immediately.

    1. And? let me tell you what this is going to accomplish if that happens, even more will get inspired to stand up, so go ahead. :).

  8. For those adamant that MacArthur is in the wrong, at what point would you say the government has gone too far?

    1. The government would go “too far” if the church was not allowed to meet indoors while similar indoor secular events (a concert or a political rally or a basketball game with stands full of fans, for example) were allowed.
      The government would go “too far” if they tried to punish MacArthur merely for expressing his mistaken opinion that the pandemic is nothing, or for anti-gay preaching or most any other expression (short of things like inciting a riot).
      The government would go “too far” if they punished the church more harshly than they punish other entities who violate health orders in a similar way. They have already shut off water and electricity to houses hosting big parties, but something like confiscating the church building or charging MacArthur with attempted homicide would be “too far.”
      EDITED TO ADD: As another commenter noted, they would go “too far” if they started shooting people who were simply attempting to enter the church. Or, I would add, if they used tear gas to clear out the sanctuary.

      Of course nothing even approaching any of these “too far” scenarios has happened so far.

      1. What part of the first amendment requires religious assemblies or peaceful assemblies to be treated like everything else? Doesn’t the first amendment give protections to religious exercise and assembly that it does not give to other events, even if they look similar?

        Many states, such as in Michigan, recognized this up front and exempted churches.

        1. The first amendment doesn’t distinguish between religious assemblies and other peaceable assemblies and concerts, basketball games, public lectures, etc are peaceable assemblies. In your view should religious assemblies be exempt from fire code rules about maximum occupancy? Or rules about blackouts during wartime (admittedly its been a few decades since the US has had that)?

          1. You are incorrect. The 1A singles out peaceable assemblies and religious expression. It does not single out basketball games, public lectures, or other types of gatherings. The history of the 1A is very clear that some things were singled out for special protection that other things do not have. because of the political or religious nature of them and the power of government to suppress them.

            And remember, things like casinos are being treated differently, IIRC. Airplanes are treated differently (though people are much closer and share the same recycled air). Protests have been treated differently. So they are allowing some gatherings.

            Fire codes are not restrictions on religious expression. That is a red herring. Fire codes do not prevent a church from meeting. They simply have to meet in a building big enough to hold the church. In this case, they are prevented from meeting. Same with blackouts.

          2. *drily* It’s obvious that not only have you not been to law school, you haven’t ever read even a college level book on constitutional law. To put it bluntly, this is a complex area of the law and when it comes to public health, there can be infringements that would not be allowed in other times.

            You may wish to consider that John MacArthur and his followers are all acting like jerks by insisting on gathering during a pandemic, without masks, without a care for anyone. MacArthur is trying to get people to believe that the pandemic is *nothing*. I’m sorry, it’s not *nothing*. I have a close friend with cardiac problems as a result of COVID-19 and I’m beyond a little ticked off at these people who don’t think COVID-19 is a public health risk.

          3. During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun’s citing of the case in Roe v. Wade.

            The same churchgoers complain about Jacobson when it comes to restrictions on church services, but are OK with Jacobson when it come restricting abortions as a non-essential medical service.

          4. During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun’s citing of the case in Roe v. Wade.

            The same churchgoers complain about Jacobson when it comes to restrictions on church services, but are OK with Jacobson when it come restricting abortions as a non-essential medical service.

          5. During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun’s citing of the case in Roe v. Wade.

            The same churchgoers complain about Jacobson when it comes to restrictions on church services, but are OK with Jacobson when it come restricting abortions as a non-essential medical service.

          6. I know right. I guess my insistence that the Constitution and the BOR be equal opportunity offenders means both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE hate my guts. I kill all their sacred cows and turn them into nice hamburgers with cheese, grilled mushrooms & onions, and spicy brown mustard. I am an odd duck, I am happy with both the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) decisions if that makes sense.

          7. I know right. I guess my insistence that the Constitution and the BOR be equal opportunity offenders means both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE hate my guts. I kill all their sacred cows and turn them into nice hamburgers with cheese, grilled mushrooms & onions, and spicy brown mustard. I am an odd duck, I am happy with both the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) decisions if that makes sense.

          8. It is a complex area of law to be sure, made more complex by the arbitrary rulings and, oddly enough, Justice Scalia’s ruling .

            How did you conclude that MacArthur has no care for anyone? That is not evident, so far as I can see. I have a man in my church who was on a vent for 9 days, in the hospital for 40 days, and his family was told twice he wouldn’t make it through the night. So yes, I know it is serious as an illness. What I also know is that the vast majority of people do not have serious problems and it is likely that most do not ever have symptoms. It is not “nothing,” but it is not a great serious risk to most people. The facts are available. There is no reason to go on like they aren’t. Six months ago, we didn’t know. Now we do.

          9. If you are a legal person, look at what I mentioned in my other post below where I brought some SCOTUS decisions.

          10. LT you really need to get a clue and actually read up on the Constitution. For starters, airplanes under FAA rules, not state (that federalism thing). Second, you cannot use examples from other states to make your case (again that federalism thing), since what happens in WA or OR does not apply to CA.

            If you can come with ONE specific case where GCC was treated differently in the state of CA compared to a mosque, synagogue, other church, or other indoor venue like a movie theater, concert hall, etc, then you would have point. Otherwise you are full of sh*t.

            Since when does requiring a church to follow indoor COVID protocols like everybody else infringe their freedom of religion? It doesn’t.

          11. The freedom of religion is not absolute. I note that you just can’t waltz into a private business or dwelling and preach your religion, for example. Really, you need to think before you start going off on freedom of religion, especially when it’s a pandemic with a highly communicable disease.

          12. Janine,

            They may infringe on it, but like other things, they (and other rights) can be temporarily infringed upon in certain cases.

            Have you ever read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)? The point as long as the state can show compelling interest AND they are NOT doing it unfairly (i.e. punishing GCC but giving a pass on other churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) they can certainly to do so for a temporary amount of time. SCOTUS precedents confirm this.

          13. Janine,

            They may infringe on it, but like other things, they (and other rights) can be temporarily infringed upon in certain cases.

            Have you ever read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)? The point as long as the state can show compelling interest AND they are NOT doing it unfairly (i.e. punishing GCC but giving a pass on other churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) they can certainly to do so for a temporary amount of time. SCOTUS precedents confirm this.

          14. Perhaps the health orders do infringe on a church’s “freedom of religion”, but they do so in a constitutionally valid way.

          15. Janine,

            They may infringe on it, but like other things, they (and other rights) can be temporarily infringed upon in certain cases.

            Have you ever read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)? The point as long as the state can show compelling interest AND they are NOT doing it unfairly (i.e. punishing GCC but giving a pass on other churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) they can certainly to do so for a temporary amount of time. SCOTUS precedents confirm this.

          16. You are simply incorrect. The state’s actions have clearly imposed on the freedom of religion. Why don’t you point out to us the place in the Constitution that talks about equal treatment.

          17. The equal treatment is in the 14th Amendment. This means you have to treat mosques the same as churches in regards to the COVID rules. So until you can point out another church, mosque, or synagogue that got a pass in CA and GCC did not. you do not have a leg to stand on.

            For starters, do you even realize that the 1A didn’t apply to the states to begin with when the BOR was ratified? The applicability of the 1A to the states was via the 14th Amendment through the Doctrine of Incorporation.

            They may infringe on it, but like other things, they (and other rights) can be temporarily infringed upon in certain cases.

            Have you ever read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)? The point as long as the state can show compelling interest AND they are NOT doing it unfairly (i.e. punishing GCC but giving a pass on other churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) they can certainly to do so for a temporary amount of time. SCOTUS precedents confirm this.

            BTW, the Freedom of Religion Clause was Incorporated to be applicable to the States via Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Interestingly this was SCOTUS said in its ruling:

            “We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, by statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

            A health emergency caused by the coronavirus would most certainly qualify for that underlined bit.

          18. The equal treatment is in the 14th Amendment. This means you have to treat mosques the same as churches in regards to the COVID rules. So until you can point out another church, mosque, or synagogue that got a pass in CA and GCC did not. you do not have a leg to stand on.

            For starters, do you even realize that the 1A didn’t apply to the states to begin with when the BOR was ratified? The applicability of the 1A to the states was via the 14th Amendment through the Doctrine of Incorporation.

            They may infringe on it, but like other things, they (and other rights) can be temporarily infringed upon in certain cases.

            Have you ever read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)? The point as long as the state can show compelling interest AND they are NOT doing it unfairly (i.e. punishing GCC but giving a pass on other churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) they can certainly to do so for a temporary amount of time. SCOTUS precedents confirm this.

            BTW, the Freedom of Religion Clause was Incorporated to be applicable to the States via Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Interestingly this is what SCOTUS said in its ruling:

            “We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, by statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee. It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

            A health emergency caused by the coronavirus would most certainly qualify for that underlined bit.

          19. I understand all the case law. You are way behind on that. I don’t think the 14A addresses this.

            Interestingly the riots that have disturbed the peace of many communities (and destroyed the communities themselves) are being given a free pass under the 1A. Strange, isn’t it, that it gets applied to one thing and not another. Furthermore, all churches agreed to a temporary cessation under the order. When it became clear that the order was no longer relevant and was no longer being applied fairly or equally, they exercised their right to resist.

      2. Remember, churches aren’t being treated the same anyway. Casinos have higher capacity limits than churches. Stores and other businesses have higher capacity limits. Airplanes can be packed full of people without social distancing. So even if we were to grant that “equal treatment” is some sort of requirement, it isn’t being practiced.

        1. If casinos had higher occupancy limits in terms of people per square foot than other indoor event spaces, that would be wrong in my opinion. But that would not specifically be an anti-church policy if most indoor events were treated the same and only casinos were treated more leniently (in some states casinos would be under a different governing authority, not the County, which might explain the difference, but I don’t know about California).

          Airplanes are regulated at the federal level (and have better ventilation systems), so that’s irrelevant to LA County health regulations.
          And stores rightly have different rules because people go in and out and move around rather than staying near the same people for an hour or more.

          It is striking how those defending MacArthur are unwilling to make apples-to-apples comparisons and keep trying to divert the discussion by throwing oranges into the mix (outdoor protests, airplanes, etc.).

          1. Over on Julie Roys’ blog, they were complaining that GCC was being treated more harshly than rioters were!

          2. *rolls eyes* John MacArthur brought this entirely on himself by being a jerk. I don’t ever want to hear him or his followers ever talk about the law again, since they’ve made it clear that they only obey the rules they want to obey. If they’re asked to do something that would benefit the public health, it is obvious they DO NOT CARE. If you go to MacArthur’s church, you’re going to a cult, IMHO.

          3. That’s the catch. Remember every non-residential building (and the rooms) in most states has an occupancy rating with a max number of people. This would listed on the occupancy certificates. Presumably LA county has created a max number of indoor people as a percentage of that rating.

            Again you need to compare apples to apples.

          4. I am not defending MacArthur. I am not sure he made the right case. I think he should have tried meeting outdoors. The rule in CA is (or at least was) that casinos can have 50% capacity while churches can have 100 people or 50%, whichever is lower. That is not equal treatment. And you should note that over a 2 hour period, a casino might change people two or three times, thus exposing a patron to many more people than a church that would not change at all.

            Again, this is common sense and it reminds us that it isn’t so common.

            Airplanes are regulated at the federal level, but that’s irrelevant. So are churches.

          5. Except the likelihood of catching the virus depends on viral load which is dependent on exposure time. In this case, GCC and casinos use recirculated air in their HVAC systems, so the longer one is there, the more likely you will come down with the virus. I would argue that you would have more exposure at a church service due to the length of time people are in said environment.

            But I guess that sort of common sense escaped you.

          6. No, it didn’t escape me. It is simply incorrect. You can argue whatever you like; you can’t pretend the facts don’t exist. It is not simply length of time. Hours with someone who doesn’t have it will not give it to you.

          7. Except the likelihood of catching the virus depends on viral load which is dependent on exposure time. In this case, GCC and casinos use recirculated air in their HVAC systems, so the longer one is there, the more likely you will come down with the virus. I would argue that you would have more exposure at a church service due to the length of time people are in said environment.

            But I guess that sort of common sense escaped you.

        2. On one hand, I see your point. Some businesses and modes of transportation might not have COVID capacity maximums (although many do).

          On the other hand, even places with higher people capacities have a heck of a lot more space for patrons to move and practice social distancing. They have employees who are cleaning constantly – especially the electronic paypads and cash register areas between transactions. Places such as churches and concert halls, auditoriums and stadiums have seating that crams dozens, hundreds, thousands of people together, with limited walking space (even for social distance practices). Also, since airplane cabins are constantly refreshed between flights (and cleaned more thoroughly, more often), the chance of catching COVID on a flight is lower than churches or sports/music halls.

          Per casinos, here’s an interesting story about the connection between casinos and increased COVID cases. dohttps://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/09/08/why-contra-costa-countys-most-latino-city-has-its-highest-rate-of-coronavirus-cases/

  9. As soon as the number of people in the building exceeds the Health Department limits, cut off the electricity.
    Their forecast high for Sunday is 95, so they’ll miss the air conditioning.

    1. I can see turning off the AC, but not during service or when people are there. That would be wrong. Maybe early Sunday morning like before light

  10. John MacArthur has been a false Christian for decades purely based on his false teachings regarding unbelief in Jesus New Covenant blood offered in heaven for his eternal redemption. Along with his unbelief that God raised Jesus from the dead by New Covenant blood as well as God making Christians adequate as servants of the New Covenant. ( Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 9:25, Hebrews chapter 9, Hebrews 13:25 and 2 Corinthians chapter 3) The only way anyone on planet earth is going to heaven is through the New Covenant of Jesus Christ in His New Covenant blood. The fruit of his unbelief in Jesus New Covenant blood is seen by his blatant consistent public rebellion toward Jesus New Commandment issued in John 13 and 17. MacArthur’s arrogance directly against Jesus blood and the Great Commandment He reissued is breathtaking. He is actively walking in Hebrews 10:29 toward his eternal destiny presently.

    1. Can you make your argument or give an explanation other than a string of Bible quotes/Zip Codes? I run into this with so many Christians. And “False Christian” has been weaponized in the game of Christian One-Upmanship to mean “Thee, NOT Me!”

      Cannot JMac’s bad behavior and arrogant attitude be self-evidently bad?

      Or is it only bad if you have Proof Texts (which have no authority to those outside the Christianese bubble)?
      Warring jots an tittles (and verses) just sidetracks everybody and misdirects away from the main point, that JMac’s cult-leader behavior and cult-like church culture is DESTRUCTIVE, both to his COVID-exposed congregation and the reputation of Christians in general.

          1. Maybe this synopsis of Scripture might clarify.

            The main message of the Bible is the prophesied blood bought and glorious New Covenant of grace. Which continually puts the spotlight on Jesus Christ and who we are in Him; which is a redeemed and beloved child of God and Kingdom of priests at new birth. Whose primary purpose is to minister unto the Lord in the inner court as a priest to be nearest His presence. Thus being empowered as a conduit to present Jesus Himself to others and bring the Kingdom of God to earth

        1. Where the TRUE “Mark of the Beast” is The National Sunday Law where the US Govt decrees everyone must go to church on SUNDAY. (Since the tribal mark of the 7th Day Adventists is strict Sabbath keeping on SATURDAY, you can see where this fits in.)

          Back when I was in my teens, I came across a 7th Day Adventist End Times book titled What Jesus Said. All I can say as a quickie is they have a unique End Times Choreography, justified from SCRIPTURE using the exact same proof texts to PROVE something completely different.

  11. I seems like MacArthur is getting a bad case of “I’m being persecuted!” again. It’s his First World problem as opposed to Christians who are killed for their faith in many Third Word counties.

  12. This is anecdotal, but I have a friend who went to get tested for COVID in California, and after signing in and standing in line for testing for a long time, left and went home. She was later called by the testing center and told that she had tested positive even though she hadn’t been tested. She in turn has several friends with the same experience. Again, anecdotal, and probably statistically insignificant, but in light of California’s testing issues (e.g. here), I understand where MacArthur is coming from on doubting the official numbers, though without agreeing with him.

    1. No, there’s no excuse for MacArthur to misunderestimate the number of infections by orders of magnitude, except for his self-serving crusade and persecution complex.

      1. “If we don’t test as much, we won’t have as many cases.”
        — Donald J Trump (who Evangelicals worshippeth)

  13. The psychological slavery that comes from being unable to admit that one ‘got it wrong’ …

    I can see why there are concerns about ‘Cuties’, by the way (although might it be seen as something of a ‘cautionary tale’?), although M’s ‘analysis’ of that included the customary swipe at gays (they can’t get enough of going on about gays, can they?).

  14. MacArthur seems more interested in spreading the virus than the word of jesus.

    Given how he likes to associate himself with MLK Jr, maybe we’ll get a chance to see how well he does in jail. I do hope that happens, because I’m very curious to see what MacArthur will say at a bail hearing if a judge asks him if he is going to continue to defy a court order.

    1. As the Civil Rights movement in the late 50’s and 60’s made clear, if you’re going to violate existing law because you’re convinced it’s wrong, you need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I wonder if MacArthur and his congregation are up to that?

  15. Looks like he was talking about current infections, not total cumulative cases. I couldn’t find stats from CA on active cases, but we can estimate using their stats for daily new cases. Daily new is about 3300. People are infectious for about two weeks. 14 x 3300 = 46,200, which is about 0.117% of the CA population.

    https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR20-227.aspx

    1. 0.117% (or thereabouts) are KNOWN to have Covid-19 at any given moment. That’s a little over 1 in 1000, or 8 per 8000-strong congregation. Hmmmm …

    2. Even if the relevant figure was 0.117%, that’s still an order of magnitude higher than MacArthur’s claim of “one one hundredth of one percent”. I guess arithmetic isn’t his strong point… or truthfulness.

      1. True. His brain may have converted “0.1%” into “one hundredth of one percent”. But Warren criticizing him using the figure for total cumulative cases is also misleading, since that’s probably not the stat he was intending to reference. (Though, we can’t say for sure.)

    3. According to Worldometer, there are 370k+ active cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/. (.93%)

      As a reader suggested to me, I think he is forgetting to multiply by 100 to get a percent. The decimal is .019 when you divide the number of cases by population. If MacArthur said 19/1000ths have COVID then he would be okay but he keeps adding the percent.

      1. Worldometer is clearly wrong in its active cases number; for a lot of counties they don’t seem to have incorporated numbers for recoveries.
        If you look at their LA County numbers, for example, the number of Total Cases they show is identical to the number of Deaths plus the number of “Active Cases”, which would mean zero people had recovered. If you look at the next county on the list (Riverside), they do seem to have tracked recoveries because the Deaths plus Active Cases is only about 10% of the Total Cases.
        If that factor of 10% of total cases being currently active applies (which seems reasonable), that would yield 70-80K active cases in California, a little under 0.2% of the population.

        I wonder if MacArthur is getting his 0.01% from some count of hospitalizations. It seems plausible that 4000 people might be hospitalized with COVID in California now.
        Of course if you are talking about the number of people who “have COVID” it is very wrong (careless or dishonest or both) to use the number of hospitalizations.

    4. According to Worldometer, there are 370k+ active cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/. (.93%)

      As a reader suggested to me, I think he is forgetting to multiply by 100 to get a percent. The decimal is .019 when you divide the number of cases by population. If MacArthur said 19/1000ths have COVID then he would be okay but he keeps adding the percent.

      1. That is what Worldometer reports, but I don’t think they track recoveries as closely as they do new cases and deaths. If there are truly 370k active cases in California right now, then that means roughly half of all cases to date California occurred in the past 2-3 weeks.

      2. Worldometer is clearly wrong in its active cases number; for a lot of counties they don’t seem to have incorporated numbers for recoveries.
        If you look at their LA County numbers, for example, the number of Total Cases they show is identical to the number of Deaths plus the number of “Active Cases”, which would mean zero people had recovered. If you look at the next county on the list (Riverside), they do seem to have tracked recoveries because the Deaths plus Active Cases is only about 10% of the Total Cases.
        If that factor of 10% of total cases being currently active applies (which seems reasonable), that would yield 70-80K active cases in California, a little under 0.2% of the population.

        I wonder if MacArthur is getting his 0.01% from some count of hospitalizations. It seems plausible that 4000 people might be hospitalized with COVID in California now.
        Of course if you are talking about the number of people who “have COVID” it is very wrong (careless or dishonest or both) to use the number of hospitalizations.

      3. In respect of current cases (at c. 3000 new cases per day), I reckon M is out by one order of magnitude; when it comes to total cases, it’s in the region of two orders of magnitude. Early in the pandemic, the figures themselves might have been out by an order of magnitude (it is rather less now, I suspect).

        However one cuts it, M is seriously underestimated the problem – a significant risk factor when it comes to public health.

Comments are closed.