And Yet More About No Singing In Church

I've been noting here the near-ubiquitous provision in the phony "reopening" process we're seeing that, although churches may "reopen" with severely limited attendance, singing also won't be allowed. This article from the Pttsburgh Post-Gazette is the most complete discussion I've seen so far (hat tip to an ELCA pastor's Facebook page):

Now that religious groups are looking at what it will take to reopen their doors to worship after weeks on Zoom and Facebook Live, they’re hearing cautions against singing together — at least not within spitting distance of each other.

Saliva droplets are considered a prime vector for spreading the coronavirus.

And when singing is involved, spitting distance could be longer than the 6 feet normally recommended for social distancing — especially if worshippers “sing lustily and with good courage,” per the instructions of the 18th century Protestant revivalist John Wesley, in words that Methodists can still find printed at the front of their hymnals.

. . . In a recent conference call with hundreds of Pennsylvania faith leaders, state Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine “did discuss singing, and the fact that the virus travels in droplets of saliva, and can travel more than six feet while singing,” according to Nate Wardle, press secretary for the Department of Health. “If singing is to occur, social distancing should be more than six feet.”

Commentators have recently pointed out that Dr Levine, whose chief claim to fame hitherto was that [s]he's the first transgendered Pennsylvania public health director, is a pediatrician, not a virologist or an epidemiologist. [S]he is nevertheless cited as a key authority on current lockdown measures. I think Edward Feser's current post on the lockdown and appeals to authority has some relevance here. He says,

[A]n appeal to authority is fallacious under one or both of two conditions: either the purported authority in question does not actually have relevant expertise, or you have reason to doubt his objectivity.

In that case, I'm on proper grounds for questioning Levine's medical qualifications to speak on epidemiology, as well as potential bias in the direction of a bizarrely leftist political agenda, which would include banning church services entirely -- or at least, banning church services of any denomination that does not recognize transgenderism.

Levine has also come to public attention for moving her mother out of a care facility just before initiating a policy of requiring Pennsylvania COVID patients to be admitted to nursing homes, which is recognized as a major policy error by New York and Pennsylvania governments that in fact increased the COVID death toll.

It's becoming clear that a consensus "new normal" will apparently include only token resumption of religious services for the indefinite future, with severely limited attendance, masks required, "social distancing", and no singing. It's entirely possible that bishops and other mainstream religious leaders will go along with this to avoid contoversy.

But as Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." I have a feeling that Evangelical, Pentecostal, and other radical Protestant groups will be the ones to remove these provisions, largely through civil disobedience.