This stat is not specific to SDA. However, it is some food for thought as to the fruit of church closures encouraged by our leaders, due to the so called pandemic.

"Researchers from the Barna Group has found that one out of three regular church-goers ceased joining church services since the pandemic forced congregations to forsake in-person gatherings."

https://activistmommy.com/researche...emic-forced-congregations-to-go-digital/

Why are we supposed to be wearing masks?

"WHO confirms asymptomatic individuals cannot spread the virus!"
https://youtu.be/Dkb0PcK1g9w

Based upon comments, that video may not be quite accurate. They said she said, "rarely".

But get this:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and-masks
"the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19. "

Doesn't that mean masks don't work?
Either they work or they don't. And that statement means they don't.
I can understand the hand washing, but maintaining distance if the mask protects you?

If someone should say, masks AND distance protects others, ask if they think people who have the full blown disease should be allowed out and about as long as they have a mask and maintain distance? That will show what they really think about mask protection.


Fabric masks don't work, but it's all we've got so do so anyway.
Vaccines don't work, but it's all we've got so do so anyway.

Because the person who wrote the article did. The Gov says it nowhere. However, there is a limit to the number of people in a group. That's fine.

Theophilus, why don't you link to what the governor said?

"Rarely" is no more justification for mandatory masking of an entire population, than is "cannot".

I believe all of the waffling self contradictory claims by the WHO are simply intended to contribute to the general Babylonian state of confusion. A constant state of confusion weakens reasoning abilities and makes the population far easier to manipulate.

Here is some food for thought in answer to the question asked in the title of this thread:

"If churches agree that they should close down now, it is inevitable that this will happen over and over again as new issues arise in which there is a hint of "emergency." Rather than having a recognized autonomy, churches that silently acquiesce are in danger of submitting themselves to the pleasure of the state. Those churches that shut down, and there may be good reason for them to choose to remain closed, must make it clear that it is their own congregational choice to do so ? not one that was imposed by state regulators. Church governing bodies, such as boards of directors, should vote on the matter and make the decision to close for themselves ? not leave it up to the government. It should never progress to the place where churches are fined and pastors arrested for practicing their faith because they allowed the state to tell them what religious practices are "legitimate" or "permissible." Although churches may reach the same conclusions regarding closing for now, it is their decision and theirs alone, not the choice of politicians who have long salivated over the prospect of bringing churches under their control and submission."

From Why Churches are Fighting Shutdown

Pastor James Coates behind bars for Holding Church

This is religious persecution--- plain and simple!
His crime is holding worship services.
Placed in highly guarded prison where the worst of criminals are kept
No parole unless he promises to stop having church services.

Where is this? China? NO -- this is Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.

Didn't the Supreme Court of the USA rule against this type of thing as a violation of the separation of church and state?

Don't we have the same separation of church and state here in Canada?

The concept of separation between church and state is said to be still in place, but it is rationalized.

Primer Kenny announced that this is not restricting religion. He said preachers can preach all they want and people can meet in church, BUT they have to meet the health guidelines, if they don't they are liable for state enacted penalties.

However those guidelines say only 15% of church capacity can attend.
That means a 400 member church, probably less than 60 of those members could attend.
What about the other 340 members who aren't allowed to meet for worship?
Who is going say which members can come and which have to stay home, and what do you tell visitors?

Our little church is limited to 12 people. So people stay home to avoid covid, or "to allow room for others" Often only 4 or 5 actually show up. Our church service is a far cry from what used to be.


We are not free to meet in church for services in the true sense of the word.

James Coatas and his staff, didn't turn people away that arrived at church --every week they were way over the 15% capacity the health guidelines mandated.