Poll of the Day > Church is called EVIL for NOT allowing MASKLESS MAN Pray and caused a BRAWL!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

A shocking video in Washington State showed a brawl erupt at a Catholic Church during a mass after a maskless man was ordered to leave by a priest which then started a massive brawl!!

It was viewed more than 170,000 times where he can be seen kneeling in front of the church when Father Paul Bruner stops reading a psalm and puts down his outstreched hands and points at him telling him "you are in trespass"

He uges members of the St. Francis Cabrini Parish to get security guards

The man then gets up approached the priest and turns to the people saying "keep your hands off of me"

He was previously ordered not to trespass in the church and was also going bare faced in violation of the state mandate for mask wearing

The congregation moves to do exactly the opposite as the man insists he's not trespassing where he goes on an anti-mask rant.

20 churchgoers then stream to the front to get him out as the priest yells "somebody please call 911"

The group collectively drags him off stage and toward the front door of the church as children cry and a woman asks "what happened to him"

The church has had a problem with the maskless man before whose son attended school there as well and when he refused to leave the property for not wearing a mask he became belligerent.

The man was arrested and charged with criminal trespass but the FB page was bombarded with people BLASTING the MOB who hounded the man and said THEY were the evil ones for not letting him speak and say masks are IMMORAL.

The church is now inundated with remarks from people calling THEM evil for not letting him pray and speak to God.

Do you think wearing a Mask is Evil in church?

https://youtu.be/wx1TqFo9Z0w?t=8

https://i.imgur.com/kCWN4ny.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5OErtyA.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/j6HHjsv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dss8KFZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VO7r5W1.jpg
---

The man is clearly threatening the priest. The posture he takes is very domineering as he confidently strides up there.

No reasonable person could see this video and side with the man in question. The video is just getting dog piled by the lunatics, not meaningful.

Jesus - welcomes lepers and the crippled, has dinner with social outcasts.
Other people in the bible - willing to risk being sealed in a cave with lions or thrown into a furnace so hot that it killed the guards who threw them in order to practice their beliefs.
Church that preaches on the bible - Not willing the breath the same air as someone who isn't a member their particular congregation.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Jesus - welcomes lepers and the crippled, has dinner with social outcasts.
Other people in the bible - willing to risk being sealed in a cave with lions or thrown into a furnace so hot that it killed the guards who threw them in order to practice their beliefs.
Church that preaches on the bible - Not willing the breath the same air as someone who isn't a member their particular congregation.

I'm sure you thought this was somehow meaningful to the topic at hand but it isn't.

WWJD?

Start taking guys down with violence!

Oh Christians you are hilarious.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I'm sure you thought this was somehow meaningful to the topic at hand but it isn't.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

---

Forgot to ask 'Is Hell Hot'?

Now antivaxxers are causing fights in church. Disgusting.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The hypocrisy is obvious.

Going and helping sick people is not the same thing as allowing a man to be a dick and threaten people.

BlackScythe0 posted...

to be a dick and threaten people.

Full Throttle posted...

he can be seen kneeling in front of the church when Father Paul Bruner stops reading a psalm and puts down his outstreched hands and points at him

These two statements don't match up.

---

Dude, its a house of God (even though He probably didnt tell them where to build it), be nice and wear the dang mask. Brawling isnt something you do in churches, wait until you get to a Chick-fil-a on Monday or something.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

These two statements don't match up.

Are you even trying?

He was previously ordered not to trespass in the church

What does any of this having to do with treating lepers as human?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Are you even trying?

No, it's sufficient for me to skate by on minimal effort.

BlackScythe0 posted...

What does any of this having to do with treating lepers as human?

The post makes a big deal about him not wearing a mask, ie. being unclean in their eyes. A contrast to the message in the bible. As for why they had a problem with him in the past I can only assume it's because they keep calling him out and assaulting him when he's not doing anything to draw attention to himself.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The post makes a big deal about him not wearing a mask, ie. being unclean in their eyes. A contrast to the message in the bible.

Generally speaking, leprosy (even in the overly vague biblical sense that encompasses pretty much any chronic disease they couldn't readily identify) isn't voluntary.

---

adjl posted...

leprosy... isn't voluntary.

The religious leaders in biblical times also set rules about the distance one could travel on the sabbath, and at east one case of prohibiting people from lifting a donkey out of a ditch until the next day. I don't think any of those were voluntary either. The church in the article seems to have followed their example but not the lesson taught using that example.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The religious leaders in biblical times also set rules about the distance one could travel on the sabbath, and at east one case of prohibiting people from lifting a donkey out of a ditch until the next day. I don't think any of those were voluntary either. The church in the article seems to have followed their example but not the lesson taught using that example.

What does that have to do with lepers?

---

adjl posted...

What does that have to do with lepers?

Why are you so focused on only lepers?

---

I really want to cause a big fight in pubilc.

Preferably a packed restaurant so everyone's meals are disturbed and tables can be flipped.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why are you so focused on only lepers?

Another interpretation of "what does that have to do with lepers?" is "why do you think this is logically analogous enough to your comments about lepers to be included in support of them?". I recommend approaching the question with that interpretation. In truth, I'm not focused on lepers, I'm focused on things that are actually analogous to Jesus' treatment of lepers (specifically, that requiring masks and rejecting anti-maskers is not so analogous).

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why are you so focused on only lepers?

You are the one who used lepers when trying to make some sort of completely unrelated comparison. Because taking care of the sick is totally the same thing as letting a jack ass threaten and potentially assault old preachers.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The man is clearly threatening the priest. The posture he takes is very domineering as he confidently strides up there.

No reasonable person could see this video and side with the man in question. The video is just getting dog piled by the lunatics, not meaningful.

Well...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Church that preaches on the bible - Not willing the breath the same air as someone who isn't a member their particular congregation.

That wasn't the issue.

Monopoman posted...

WWJD?

Start taking guys down with violence!

Oh Christians you are hilarious.

Er...if he turned the place into a den of thieves, Jesus certainly might kick him out somewhat forcefully.
But you find it funny to paint Jesus as a hippie.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

You are the one who used lepers when trying to make some sort of completely unrelated comparison.

I mentioned lepers among a range of people that were deemed unclean. Others who were shunned include anyone from Sumeria or anyone who worked as a tax collector. It seems like you're focusing on the lepers as a bad example as if that would automatically invalidate every other example I used.

Sega9599 posted...

That wasn't the issue.

I understand that the preacher called him out due to some history they have. What that history involves is not clear. For this singular confrontation it looks to me that the preacher instigated it, and it could have been avoided by just not calling attention to him.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I mentioned lepers among a range of people that were deemed unclean. Others who were shunned include anyone from Sumeria or anyone who worked as a tax collector. It seems like you're focusing on the lepers as a bad example as if that would automatically invalidate every other example I used.

You're trying to move goal posts. Jesus famously treated people with leprosy you joyfully use the example like it was some how relevant to your defense of a jack ass and now you're trying to say "Why are you so focused on this thing I said?" when it was the main argument you tried to make.

Dude was threatening the priest the people acted to protect their priest end of story. Stop fucking acting like there is anything else going on.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

For this singular confrontation it looks to me that the preacher instigated it, and it could have been avoided by just not calling attention to him.

The man instigated it by violating the mask policy. Surely you're not so clueless as to think that all of the blame lies with the first person to say something antagonistic, with no regard for the actions of those involved.

---

adjl posted...

The man instigated it by violating the mask policy.

I don't see that as being antagonistic.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see that as being antagonistic.

When they clearly already know it is. When they refuse to leave it is. When they threaten the priest it is.

He was in the wrong every step of the way, what fucking obligation could the priest possibly be under to just ignore the jack ass? Were you also a fan of appeasement policies leading up to ww2?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see that as being antagonistic.

You don't see deliberately ignoring public health recommendations (and also the regulations of this private establishment) and thereby endangering everyone around you as being antagonistic?

---

adjl posted...

You don't see deliberately ignoring public health recommendations (and also the regulations of this private establishment) and thereby endangering everyone around you as being antagonistic?

No.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No.

Do you consider it antagonistic to walk into a non-smoking building and start smoking?

---

adjl posted...

Do you consider it antagonistic to walk into a non-smoking building and start smoking?

No.

---

adjl posted...

Do you consider it antagonistic to walk into a non-smoking building and start smoking?

I'm pretty sure he only thinks it's antagonistic when you respond to people being dicks and initiating conflicts.

adjl posted...

Do you consider it antagonistic to walk into a non-smoking building and start smoking?

Ahhh do you see? He doesn't find his own actions antagonistic! What a wild card.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No.

Then I don't expect you to understand this issue until you learn how civil human interaction works. I recommend further research on that matter before attempting to participate in discussions like these again, as there's really no point in engaging you until you do.

---

adjl posted...

there's really no point in engaging you until you do.

You were the the one that engaged with me by picking apart my responses to BlackScythe0.
You claimed to not comprehend the anology I had made.
Our conversation has been about me explaining things to you.
Now you say that I don't understand when you find it difficult to express yourself.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see that as being antagonistic.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You were the the one that engaged with me by picking apart my responses to BlackScythe0.

And apparently that was a waste of time because you lack the fundamental understanding of basic human interaction necessary to realize how wrong those responses are.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You claimed to not comprehend the anology I had made.

I perfectly understood the analogy you tried to make and never claimed otherwise. It's just not analogous to this situation in any way.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Our conversation has been about me explaining things to you.

It really has not.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you say that I don't understand when you find it difficult to express yourself.

No amount of eloquence on my part will make up for you failing to understanding that deliberately acting in direct violation of the requests of a society - particularly reasonable requests that are necessary to ensure the comfort and safety of everyone present - is an antagonistic act. So long as you don't get that, attempting to explain why you're wrong here is going to be as futile as trying to explain linear algebra to somebody that doesn't understand why 2+2=4.

This is how human interaction works. I don't know how you've reached an age where you can form complete sentences without realizing that, but however that's happened, that is a gaping hole in your understanding of the world around you that means any efforts to engage with you on this subject will be fruitless so long as it persists.

---

So you see a person minding their own business, not interfering with anyone elses ability to do the same, and you think that's a form of aggression. How do you survive each night having to defend yourself from other people who are in their own homes, asleep?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So you see a person minding their own business, not interfering with anyone elses ability to do the same, and you think that's a form of aggression. How do you survive each night having to defend yourself from other people who are in their own homes, asleep?

You are drastically misrepresenting the situation. Do you also allow people to trespass on your property?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

not interfering with anyone elses ability to do the same

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So you see a person minding their own business, not interfering with anyone elses ability to do the same, and you think that's a form of aggression.

Do you genuinely not understand that choosing to ignore mask requirements is a deliberate action? Or that failing to enact mask requirements has measurable negative effects on public health and safety? Have you forgotten about that little pandemic thing that kind sorta maybe is killing millions of people?

For that matter, how the actual hell do you characterize smoking in a non-smoking building as "minding their own business [and] not interfering with anyone else's ability to do the same"? Are you unaware of the existence of second-hand smoke? Do you not have a nose?

---

None of those are something I would assault someone over.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

None of those are something I would assault someone over.

Well those goalposts certainly moved quickly. Finally got through to you, did I?

Physically escorting trespassers off of the property on which they are trespassing is not considered assault in any jurisdiction that I know of. There are reasonable limits to that, certainly, but if "please leave" doesn't suffice, escalating to physical force (and/or requesting that the police do so) to effect that request is quite acceptable. Any actual assault that took place in the resulting altercation was because of his decision to retaliate to that acceptable physical force, meaning he is the one that escalated the situation (in addition to creating it in the first place).

Moreover, there is absolutely no basis on which to suggest that the person asking a trespasser to leave is the antagonist. The trespasser is the one that - by trespassing - has created a problem, which makes them the antagonist. Attempts to solve that problem are merely responding to a conflict that has already been created (by the antagonist), not creating a new problem. I don't know how you ever thought you could possibly characterize it otherwise.

Now, if you want to try argue that it's unreasonable to require masks during the worst public health crisis in a century that happens to be caused by a droplet-borne virus, you can try that, but doing so is going to require looking at actual data regarding the effectiveness of masks at reducing the spread, not trying to paint people that are facing appropriate consequences for wilfully disregarding public safety as hapless victims of oppression and hate. You're unlikely to get very far with that line of reasoning, which is why the vast majority of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are relying so heavily on flimsy pathos, but it nonetheless remains your only option for a logically valid argument in favour of your position.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

None of those are something I would assault someone over.

He wasn't "assaulted" for any of those reasons. He was threatening the priest and then started flailing when people tried to stop him which made things turn physical as people needed to protect themselves from him.

adjl posted...

Well those goalposts certainly moved quickly. Finally got through to you, did I?

No, I really don't a problem with any of those things you mentioned. I just wanted to get back to the actions of the people in the church and what they thought was justified.

adjl posted...

Moreover, there is absolutely no basis on which to suggest that the person asking a trespasser to leave is the antagonist.

Are we watching the same video? Normally this situation calls for a group of 3 or 4 to gather and quietly ask the guy to leave. Instead the preacher is a making a public display throwing the guy out. This suggests to me that this isn't just a matter of wearing a mask but is built on a history between them.

adjl posted...

Attempts to solve that problem are merely responding to a conflict that has already been created (by the antagonist), not creating a new problem.

If by responding you mean a group got on the stage and starting shoving him. Though he was on stage he was keeping his distance from everyone else. It looks like the guy in the brown jacket is one who escalated it.

adjl posted...

Now, if you want to try argue that it's unreasonable to require masks

Whether it's reasonable or not for anyone else to have such a requirement is too broad a subject and not relevant to this case. Again, I think this is about the history between the people involved an not the mask. So whatever that history is the manner in which the preacher confronted the guy and the actions of the congregation in escalating the conflict are not in keeping with the messages of compassion and reconciliation normally associated with the book they supposedly follow.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I really don't a problem with any of those things you mentioned.

Then you have a lot to learn about basic human interaction, and I'm afraid I don't know where to start correcting you.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Are we watching the same video? Normally this situation calls for a group of 3 or 4 to gather and quietly ask the guy to leave. Instead the preacher is a making a public display throwing the guy out. This suggests to me that this isn't just a matter of wearing a mask but is built on a history between them.

A history like this, perhaps?
Full Throttle posted...

He was previously ordered not to trespass in the church and was also going bare faced in violation of the state mandate for mask wearing

Publicly asking a trespasser to leave is not unreasonable, especially when he has committed the same offence before and been instructed not to. Publicly requesting that security escort him out when he refuses to leave (again) is also perfectly reasonable. Being discreet and polite about asking that he leave is a courtesy, not a requirement, and he has given up that privilege by insisting on creating the same problem again. When you deliberately frustrate people, you give up any moral right you might have had to complain about how frustrated they are.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If by responding you mean a group got on the stage and starting shoving him.

Yes, that is indeed a response to the problem that the trespasser created by trespassing. Had he wished to avoid that response, he could have done so by not trespassing. Instead, he felt that he needed to piss people off, which resulted in people being pissed off.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

escalating the conflict are not in keeping with the messages of compassion and reconciliation normally associated with the book they supposedly follow.

Showing compassion to lepers is showing compassion to people that have come by unfortunate circumstances and been shunned by the rest of society as a result of how "undesirable" those circumstances have made them. This man has not come by unfortunate circumstances. This man has voluntarily chosen to antagonize and endanger those around him. He is being shunned not because of his misfortune, but because of his blatant misanthropy, and that's perfectly fair. If he were to repent and comply with the mask requirement, then yes, reconciling and welcoming him back into the congregation would be the compassionate thing to do, but so long as he's actively antagonizing them, there's absolutely no reason to expect that. He has chosen to be undesirable, so unless one can argue that his choices should not have that consequence (which nobody with a rudimentary understanding of public health can do without outright lying about their conclusions), he does not deserve compassion for being treated as undesirable.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Whether it's reasonable or not for anyone else to have such a requirement is too broad a subject and not relevant to this case.

It's fundamentally essential for answering the question "is it reasonable to kick him out?", which in turn is central to the whole incident. If it's not reasonable to kick him out, then it's not reasonable to consider him a trespasser and you can potentially make the argument that he's not the antagonist (though, as a private entity providing a non-essential service, the church has the right to exclude anyone from their property for any reason, so he would still be a trespasser regardless). If it is reasonable to kick him out, then any actions necessary to achieve that goal are automatically justified.

---

adjl posted...

A history like this, perhaps?

No, something else.

adjl posted...

Showing compassion to lepers is showing compassion to people that have come by unfortunate circumstances and been shunned by the rest of society

Again you're focused on lepers when I gave several examples of people who were shunned.

adjl posted...

He is being shunned not because of his misfortune, but because of his blatant misanthropy, and that's perfectly fair.

And you're still missing the point that a church should not be involved in shunning anyone.

adjl posted...

he does not deserve compassion for being treated as undesirable.

I don't know how much exposure you've had to biblical scripture. One teaching within it is that no one is deserving of compassion nor capable of earning it. Yet followers of the bible are called to show compassion to others because compassion was shown to them.

adjl posted...

If it's not reasonable to kick him out, then it's not reasonable to consider him a trespasser and you can potentially make the argument that he's not the antagonist

Now you're finally catching on.

---

He was trespassing asked to leave and then threatened the priest when people intervened he got physical and they went to stop the threat.

He was the aggressor and in the wrong every step of the way your defense of him is quite repugnant.

That was so staged. Just more propaganda.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, something else.

Why would you assume an alternate explanation than the one that is explicitly and definitively presented?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Again you're focused on lepers when I gave several examples of people who were shunned.

And my comment works just fine if you substitute any of those other examples in there. Imagine that: An explanation based on one example also applies to analogous examples. Who knew?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And you're still missing the point that a church should not be involved in shunning anyone.

So you would expect them to open their doors to a gunman that was shooting every Christian he could find? Should they share the cup of communion with somebody with an active case of Ebola? Or are they permitted to shun people that are openly dangerous and/or hostile to them?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't know how much exposure you've had to biblical scripture. One teaching within it is that no one is deserving of compassion nor capable of earning it. Yet followers of the bible are called to show compassion to others because compassion was shown to them.

So his status as a leper (voluntarily so) contributes no moral obligation to welcome him? Meaning they should instead focus on the practical reality of how safe such a decision is? Good to know.

You can show compassion without giving up all pretense of self-preservation.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you're finally catching on.

So do you plan on presenting an argument in favour of not kicking out somebody who is blatantly disregarding public health recommendations during the worst public health crisis in a century? That being the prerequisite for the conclusion that you seem to think I've reached, after all, a prerequisite which you have utterly failed to meet.

---

adjl posted...

Why would you assume an alternate explanation than the one that is explicitly and definitively presented?

And my comment works just fine if you substitute any of those other examples in there. Imagine that: An explanation based on one example also applies to analogous examples. Who knew?

So you would expect them to open their doors to a gunman that was shooting every Christian he could find? Should they share the cup of communion with somebody with an active case of Ebola? Or are they permitted to shun people that are openly dangerous and/or hostile to them?

So his status as a leper (voluntarily so) contributes no moral obligation to welcome him? Meaning they should instead focus on the practical reality of how safe such a decision is? Good to know.

You can show compassion without giving up all pretense of self-preservation.

So do you plan on presenting an argument in favour of not kicking out somebody who is blatantly disregarding public health recommendations during the worst public health crisis in a century? That being the prerequisite for the conclusion that you seem to think I've reached, after all, a prerequisite which you have utterly failed to meet.

You're failing to meet his argument dude. He doesn't care about the public health thing and you're not going to convince him. All that matters is dude was trespassing and told to leave and he chose to threaten the priest in response.