Plant closing. Layoff in 2 weeks. Hrs cut till then. Preparing to move whenever restrictions are lifted.
Curious twist in this stay home order that's apparently about public safety. I could really use a new pair of sneakers. The local shoe store is shut down because the governor has arbitrarily deemed it 'non essential' so I can't go to a nice quiet store where it's easy to maintain a good distance from other people to buy a pair of sneakers. But I can squash in with everybody else at Wally World and buy a pair of sneakers there. How this helps public safety isn't entirely clear, I must confess.
In other news, I had expected the statewide order to result in less traffic past my house. So far it seems to have had the opposite effect - initial impressions are that there are more trucks and showing less regard for the speed limit than before. The one state trooper who drove through town a couple of hours back didn't seem bothered by anything.
Looks like the only practical way to travel interstate is to aquire a documented negative test result, so far unattainable. You get stopped at both the Oregon and California borders. My elderly aunt in coastal Oregon is safely isolated yet too isolated. Need a drone.
Allegorical, mythical, mystical In opposition to the idea, like chicken nuggets, that "parts is parts"
That is so freaking unconstitutional it makes my head spin. This is why they invented four wheel drive, paper atlases and USGS 1:24,000 topo maps, compasses, and M-4s.
Like someone told me Saturday after reading some "commentary" I was writing on James 1. "Dude, your brain is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."
To think of it, Why would one want to travel in such times, Interstate or otherwise. Staying put for a few days wouldn't hurt anyone. When an alternative to some inconvenience is a date with death, the choice shouldn't be any clear. We will all have enough time for all silly trifle things when this passes over, We just need to make sure we survive.
Some of us have family situations that require on-hand, shared responsibilities, particularly with vulnerable seniors.
I heard that. We've been doing 3 phone calls a day to The Redhead(tm)'s 87 year old mother. We can monitor her outside security cameras and are doing FACETIME once a day, but man, I don't like it. Fortunately, we were able to get grocery delivery, but not being able to be there is driving us nuts. If they block the county off (because it is the second highest infection zone in the state), I'll need four wheel drive, a compass, maps, and the M4, because she will not be staying there alone if that happens. I already have a lawyer!
The point of having constitutional rights is that you don't have to justify them to anyone. It's easy to take an extreme situation and make grand claims that we don't need this or that and therefore we can't have them, and the more people who accept such intrusions the easier it is for governments to rein in rights later on because we've demonstrated that we don't need them. And let's face it, it's not like Going Outside is the fastest way to the grave. Statistics appear to show that a huge majority of people who catch the virus have either no symptoms or minor symptoms.
Serious question (from a non-expert on the details of the constitution). Is it permissible under the constitution for a state government to require someone from out of state to quarantine themselves before circulating? I'm seeing all sorts of articles about what powers this or that level of government might have and read one article that said it wasn't permitted to stop people crossing state lines but was permitted to quarantine them for a time.
CDC is granted executive federal power to enforce quarantine under certain guidelines. Depending on the legislation in force, states may enforce quarantines as well. I have serious doubts about a general, all purpose "Stop and be quarantined order" without something more than "you ain't from around heah, are ya, boy" mentality. Quarantine, line any government taking of one's liberty, is going to have not only the civil equivalent of "probable cause" but also some fairly fact intensive inquiry as to the reasonableness or necessity for the same. For instance, "Where are you from" won't work. "Have you been in any area that has more than 3 active COVID19 cases in the county" would probably be OK. The burden should be on the government, not on the individual to explain reasons for visiting, prior locations, etc.
I'll tease you with the intro and the first few paragraphs for James 1:1. If you are glutton for punishment, I could start another thread. Remember, you asked for it. Author’s Preface I am not a professional writer. I am not a professional theologian. Although trained as a young man for full-time vocational ministry in the North American evangelical tradition, I have not earned my bread from a local church or other “ministry” position in over thirty years. My subsequent training and vocation has been in the law, and I am, as of this writing, an active attorney and partner in a law firm. I recognize many of my frailties and faults, even though I will not willingly confess them to you as I probably should. They are self-evident, to steal from Jefferson. For some time, a number of friends (a group quite small in number) and acquaintances (a group somewhat but not significantly larger) have been hinting, suggesting, questioning, musing -- that I should pull out my Bible teacher hat and get back in the game. I have been somewhat non-functioning for a while, (wait until you hear my confessions/opinions of what we call “local churches”!), but recognize that a part of my personal stewardship is to be the teaching gift (see Ephesians 4:12 – note: “Be”, not “use.” Think about the difference in the context of the passage) for the benefit of the Church, not for my own ego (which is still very healthy to the point of over-importance) or financial benefit, but because I had nothing to do with the giving of the gift, and it seems a poor way of saying “Thank you” to take a gift and sit it on the shelf. While I do not believe that anyone can completely understand objectively their subjective prejudices and biases (clever and profound statement, yes?), I freely acknowledge that my present understanding of God and the Bible is limited by (1) my own understanding, (2) my own cultural and experiential biases, and (3) my physical and mental ability or disability in explaining and communicating the reality of a metaphysical experience (my experience with God) using both objective and subjective criteria in a form of human communication. I am drawn and have decided to express my thoughts in this format to the Epistle of James. There are many reasons, (here comes a lawyer phrase), “including, but not limited to” the fact that James is relatively short, pithy, action oriented, primarily practical, (although not bereft of theological subtleties), and addresses topics that impact me on a daily basis. I must begin my approach to James, accordingly, as I would approach any other New Testament or Old Testament Scripture. In doing so, I must admit my adherence to necessary presuppositions, which I deem essential, and which the reader is free to accept or reject. I warn you, however, that if you do not approach Scripture with these presuppositions, you must face your own presuppositions, and rightly recognize the ways in which they color your view of the world. After all, to a hammer, everything is a nail, true? Said another way, failure to understand and acknowledge our individual bias leads often to either self-fulfilling prophecy or private heretical interpretation. Here is my list. I freely admit the paraphrase, adaptation, and expansion of what is commonly called the “historical/critical” method of Scriptural interpretation. These presuppositions are the foundation upon which everything I believe about Scripture is based. 1. God is God and I am not. 2. God’s revelation of Himself is true whether I understand it or not, whether I believe it or not, or whether I obey it or not. 3. The original readers (or hearers) of the Scriptures understood the message and understood what they were supposed to do in response. 4. The same truths, moral principles, or spiritual truths that had meaning to the original hearer or reader, and that required a moral or spiritual response (either to affirmative thought or action or against it), is still relevant for me and of the same power and obligation to me. 5. Scripture is divine, inerrant, wholly inspired by God Himself, written by holy men of God as God gave impetus through the mystery of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and I ignore it at my peril.[1] 6. Scripture is not magical, but it is metaphysical. It is simultaneously rational and irrational, mind and spirit, comprehensible and incomprehensible. So here we go. James 1:1 The Epistle of James. 20th book of the New Testament, right after Hebrews and right before Peter’s first epistle. Not only did Martin Luther call it “an epistle of straw,” he also said “The epistle of James gives us much trouble. . . I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.” But in all fairness, Luther didn’t pull a Jefferson and excise James from the New Testament. It just was never in his Top Ten list. Luther, in the context of his monumental struggle with a church that stood foursquare opposed to the idea of the Five Solas, and most importantly, against the idea that “the just shall live by faith! (alone),” understandingly struggled with James’ interpretation and application of the concept of works and faith. When we get there, I am certain we will struggle with it, too. Alas, I have an additional problem with the Epistle of James. James is too convicting. James is too revelatory of my favorite sins, the ones that I label “quirks,” or “character imperfections,” and especially of the ones I simply choose to ignore. James is the mirror that reveals not only the flaws of the man in the mirror, but also the intentional misremembering of that man as soon as his focus is drawn elsewhere. James is a direct affront and contradiction to my non-persecuted, white bread, 21st century prosperous North American evangelicalism that says “be warmed and filled” while leaving "Others" [those not like me] cold and empty. The circumstances of my faith are so far removed from James’ audience of the transient, refugee Jewish Christians scattered throughout the known world as to be irreconcilable. Given my place, how can I even begin to understand the simplicity, the power, the moral demand of James’ message to those early followers of Jesus? So… “James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus, to the twelve tribes that are scattered aboard, Greetings.” James. Tradition and most scholars hold that James, the author of the Epistle of James, is the eldest brother of Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ miraculous virgin birth. James. Same brother that came with the rest of the family in Mark 3 to drag Jesus away to the loony bin. Same brother that was nowhere to be found at the foot of the cross as Mary wept for her eldest son. Same brother that left his older brother hanging on the cross instead of stepping up as Jewish tradition would require to take care of the body. Same brother that refused to believe in Jesus until after the resurrection, when the resurrected Jesus appeared in person to his younger brother and rocked his world. Same brother that then became one of the three principle leaders (along with John and Peter) in the fledgling church in Jerusalem. Same James that saw and lived through the great persecution stirred up by Saul/Paul after the death of Stephen. Same James that was at the Jerusalem Council. Same James that Paul called an apostle but who was not one of the original twelve in the Band of Brothers. Same guy that likely saw his entire congregation escape the Siege of Jerusalem in 69 A.D. when Gallus took a break before Vespasian showed up (think Luke 21 and Matthew 24) and everyone in the city died except for the ones carried off into slavery. THAT guy. [1] I have not found a better explanation of inspiration and inerrancy than that set out in The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, 1978. A copy can be found at hyyps://ww.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf. I am certainly open to correction on this point.