The BC Health Officer has suggested that worship services aren't being suspended bc they can still happen virtually. This idea needs to be rejected.

Whtvr one thinks of the shutdown, virtual services are not equivalent, &the govt does not have jurisdiction to determine they are.

Listen to this, starting around the 4:59 mark:

Bonnie Henry says, "When we talk about places of worship, it's not that they are shut down...but I encourage everybody to reach out virtually and support each other.”

It's true that "they" are not "shut down" in the sense that the buildings aren't being padlocked. But the *people* are not being allowed to attend the *services.*

Some faiths can allow for only the clergy to conduct services, but not historic Protestants Christians.

Some faiths do not require public assembling for their worship, but not historic Protestants.

Some faiths do not require actual singing and praying together together, do not require the communal celebration of the Lord's Supper.

But not historic Protestants.

The govt shouldn't play word games. They are shutting down houses of worship, at least for a time. If they don't like the implications of that, then they should consider why not.

Don't be misled. A shut down of Sunday service is a suspension of basic religious rights.

If the govt thinks they need to suspend a charter right, then they should make their case. But I would hope they would also explain the justification, as well as the ways in which such justification can be measured and checked over time.

What are the metrics, who judges them, &what political mechanisms are there to keep such a process accountable?

Asking these questions is not insubordination. It's not disrespectful. It's basic responsible citizenship. It's asking the govt. to be faithful to its own principles.