By Manny Soliz, Jr.

I watched the press conference two weeks ago of our Transitional Housing Ad Hoc Committee at the motel on E. 18th Street about the plan to lease the entire facility for Antioch’s unhoused residents. My first thought was why are we having a press conference when the rest of our city leadership hasn’t even discussed this yet? They called their plan a bridge strategy.

It’s actually a bridge to nowhere. There’s no strategy to help the 30 or so people housed at a price tag of $1 million per year. There’s no substance abuse counseling, no help for people suffering from mental illness, no job rehabilitation services offered and no end in sight to the City’s financial commitment.

To add insult to injury, the City would lose about $100,000 per year in hotel occupancy taxes, funding critical to support the Animal Shelter and Animal services. How about the businesses along E. 18th Street, were they consulted about placing a homeless shelter in their midst? How do you think their businesses will be affected?

How about the residents living next to and in the vicinity of the motel? Do you think this will make them feel safer? Will this improve their property values?

How about the Mary Rocha Child Care center or the Rocketship Charter School both along Cavallo Road, were they consulted? Were they happy with this idea?

And perhaps the most alarming is that this “bridge” is a few hundred feet away from one of the 2 highest crime corridors in Antioch! Why would you place a vulnerable population so close to crime elements? This area is so dangerous, there was a homicide and a stabbing a few hundred feet away the week before the press conference.

Homelessness needs addressing at the County and State levels, given the complexity and scale of the issue. As a city, we cannot address this issue on our own. It is too costly and beyond Antioch’s sole ability to resolve.

Unhoused people are not one monolithic group, there are those suffering from mental illness, those afflicted with substance abuse and the people who have lost their jobs and then their homes. One approach will not help all the groups.

Failing to find shelter, in close proximity to the needed services, is incredibly sad, and a stunning waste of time and resources. The City has been talking about this issue for over a year, and we are no closer to actually helping those needing our help.

City leaders need to avoid the short-sighted approach of the bridge strategy and work as soon as possible to break ground on the proposed shelter, just east of Los Medanos College and adjacent to the county building where the needed services can be provided.

Once in a generation, a mistake of astronomical proportions is made by Antioch leaders. The last mistake of this magnitude was the ferryboat financial fiasco of the late-1980s. This bridge strategy is a costly bridge to nowhere.

Manny Soliz Jr.

Former Mayor Pro Tem & Council Member, City of Antioch

Current Antioch District 1 Candidate

Dear Editor:

This is an open letter to the city of Antioch per #CupOfJoBruno and Delta Peers. Specifically, this is a letter addressing the current city council. It’s close to elections and I’m curious why I should support you. Any of you. So, here’s the thing. I’m a Pittsburg native, and I am a proud Pirate. But Antioch is home to me. I have placed my heart in the waters that rest under the bridge. I have, like many others, marked my territory. I did what a lot of folks do, and I left home to experience life outside of where I was born. I traveled overseas and went to college in another state. But I find myself back here and I’m playing for keeps.

Currently without residency, living in my car, I am working hard to become the best version of myself. And even with the heartache and pain of my situation, I am quite happy with who I’ve become as I decide to watch y’all real close. As an anthropologist and a writer, I am observing you and waiting to write my critique. I see myself running for office as I grow into my purpose in Antioch. I feel I may even run for mayor one day. What’s a city, right? A lot of responsibly y’all. It’s a lot of responsibility.

Why haven’t you taken responsibility? Why haven’t you done anything for the unhoused population until we had a pandemic? The police department needed a good looking at prior to the countless murders of young black folks. Why are so many buildings unused and boarded up? Why have you dismissed your responsibilities and are you going to do anything different this time?

If I have personally spoken to you in passing, I know you know who I am. With all the kind words and motivational speeches, we’ve shared, I question who you are because I haven’t seen many of you act on any of it. As I move forward with establishing Delta Peers, will I see you at the table? I sure hope you hold true to your word because we need better support out here for the community. Y’all have seemed to forgotten your community and we are suffering out here. Y’all can do better, and I pray you start using the resources within the community so we can build better resources for the city.

Delta Peers is coming to the streets. We are bringing our voices and our skills. We are supporting each other and it’s time you support us too. Peer Support and mental health wellness is key moving forward as we rebuild Antioch. Y’all better get on the right side of history and make this city booming like it was when I came and visited when I was a child, in the mid-80s. We can’t ask for surrounding cities to help or join us, we are the wise old woman sitting on her porch with a shot gun, protecting her land. We help the other cities. Guide them. We are the leader here. And it’s about time we rise again.

So, show me why I am supporting you. Show us where our money is going. Show us all how you intend to improve the city that’s been stagnant the entire time you’ve been in office? Please, show us. We’ve been waiting for a long time.

Jo Bruno

Peer Action League Member for California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organization (CAMHPRO)

By Jon Coupal and Ernest Dronenburg

Come November, Proposition 13 faces its biggest political battle at the ballot box. It is instructive to ask whether that iconic tax affordability measure remains good tax policy for California.

As the just-released property tax assessments rolls from several California counties reveal, Proposition 13 is working exceedingly well at keeping homeowners and small business owners from losing their properties to skyrocketing property taxes, while delivering government a reliable source of revenue. Voters would be foolish to repeal one of its major protections this November.

Take San Diego County, for example. The assessed value of all taxable property increased to a record high $604.75 billion, more than a five percent increase over last year. Because the state-set “lien date” is January 1st, any potential impact from COVID-19 won’t show up in this year’s numbers. Nonetheless, there is little to suggest that the county will see any major downturn in the real estate market, notwithstanding the pandemic.

San Diego’s experience with Proposition 13, as with most California counties, should lay to rest the notion that Proposition 13 has starved local government of revenue. Since 1978, increases in property tax revenue for local governments have far exceeded population and inflation. And while California now has the highest income tax rate, gas tax and sales tax rate in America, we remain in the top third (17th out of 50) in per capita property tax revenue. In short, we are not a low property tax state.

Hardly an outlier, San Diego County’s benefits from Prop. 13 are evident in the other counties that just reported their assessment rolls. These eleven counties all enjoyed big increases in taxable value that produced more revenue for schools and governments, including Fresno (up 5.5 percent), Marin (4.5 percent) and Orange (4.72 percent).

So how is it possible that, over the course of 41 years of history, Prop. 13 continues to work so well? Prop. 13 is an implicit contract with government that says property owners agree to pay a maximum property tax rate of 1 percent for as long as they own the property and agree to an annual increase of that taxable value up to 2 percent. When the property changes owners, it is reassessed at the market value and the new owner gets the benefit of a transparent and predictable tax they can afford. Prior to Prop. 13, every year was a guessing game as to whether you could afford your property taxes.

But now, far-left progressives and tax-hungry public sector labor interests want to strip away that protection from business and industrial properties in order to seize what they believe to be between $6 billion to $12 billion annually in taxes. Even their estimate of revenue has huge volatility.

Their Proposition 15 proposal on the November ballot would require continuous reassessment of business properties by removing the two percent cap on annual increases.

There are many reasons to reject Prop. 15. But as the 58 counties release their assessment rolls, it’s more evident than ever that Prop. 13 has delivered affordability for property owners and a stable and growing revenue source for schools and local governments. We shouldn’t abandon a system that’s working.

We should reject Proposition 15 in November. It’s obvious that it will have a negative impact on revenue stability for our schools and on stability for taxpayers. We will see businesses closing not because of the pandemic, but because they cannot afford to pay their property taxes.

Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr. is the elected San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk and former 20-year member of the California Board of Equalization and Chairman of its Property Tax Committee.

 

Dear Editor:

As the only African American School Board Trustee for Antioch Unified School District I can no longer remain silent during this pandemic. President Diane Gibson-Gray continues to undermine my ability to perform my fiduciary duties as a board trustee. For the past four months, the AUSD Board meetings have been virtual, and President Diane Gibson-Gray intentionally orchestrates ethnic intimidation and instrumental workplace bullying practices virtually. This is the time to recognize humanity during COVID-19 as we witness the racial strife in America and in East County. As President of Antioch Board of Education leadership is paramount. President Gibson-Gray continues to disregard leading our Board and work collaboratively. She exhibits incompetence as a leader. Parents and teachers have emailed me inquiring why for the past four months the Board Trustee faces are not displayed. I want to inform the public that the Trustee Householder and myself have been intentionally blocked.

As a parent and as a Board Trustee I am deeply concerned that the disregard of addressing safety for our students and staff is appalling. The first virtual meeting on April 8th (see agenda) President Gibson-Gray placed on the Agenda listing under Items for Information/Discussion/Action items requested by the Board None (Due to the current pandemic, only essential items will be placed on the agenda until the shelter in place is lifted.) This pandemic is a public health crisis and not addressing as a Board Governance team the COVID-19 policies and procedures is seriously disturbing.

My fellow Board Trustee, Ellie Householder and myself were not allowed to ask any questions based on her authority. The entire Board did not vote on this absurd “protocol”. This is a constant pattern with President Gibson-Gray not able to be a leader pertaining to safety for our school district. In January, Jonathan Parker was gunned down and the family continues to grieve.

During the pandemic, the safety precautions are more critical than ever. Trustee Householder and I have requested for a Board Workshop Reopening Plan for July and we are denied numerous times during this crisis.

During the month of July, I sent many emails to President Gibson-Gray specifying a Board Workshop is crucial to schedule prior to our August 12th Board meeting. Her response was to check with our Superintendent. Once again President Gibson-Gray is not a leader for our Board. The Superintendent works for us. Listed below is what I specifically requested:

1) Start with Advisory Committee (including Counselors, Teacher, VP’s)

2) An Updated Organizational chart of Certificated and Classified Staff

3) Health and Safety Guidelines

4) PPE Projected Expenses

Antioch Unified School District deserves a leader during these unprecedented times to reassure our students, staff, and administration to provide safety and transparency.

Stay safe,

Crystal Sawyer-White MS

Board Trustee

Antioch Unified School District

The following Open Letter was sent to the AUSD Board on Saturday, July 18 regarding the AUSD webinars of July 16, 2020 and Governor Newsom’s press conference of July 17, 2020

Dear Board Members and Others,

My name is Mark Hadox and I am concerned about the AUSD plans for using the hybrid model for the upcoming 2021 school year.

There are many ideas and various models of school re-opening and learning methods for 2021.

On Friday, Governor Newsom laid out mandatory guidelines for opening schools and closing schools. School openings will only happen upon general county-wide health criteria being met as well as specific school and district criteria.  Now AUSD must form a plan which works within the governor’s criteria and has the best chance of success.

After schools are permitted to open the governor’s plan calls for closing schools and returning to distance learning when any of the following conditions are met:

a) One person in a class with confirmed positive would cause the 14-day quarantine of those exposed to that person.

b) school reverts to distance learning when multiple cohorts have positive cases

c) or school reverts to distance leaning when 5% of students and staff test positive

d) district reverts to distance learning when 25% of schools have been closed

After 14 days under each condition the school may return to in-person instruction with the approval of the local public health officer.

How do those state mandated criteria apply to AUSD in real numbers?

From Wikipedia, there are about 17,000 AUSD students so with a student to teacher ratio of, say 27, the result is approximately 630 classrooms and 630 teachers and hundreds more specialty teachers, substitutes, and staffing.

When each of those 630 classes are split into two cohorts for in-class teaching that will be 1,260 cohorts, spread among 25 schools in the district, including two of our six high schools having about 2,000 students each.

Note, per Contra Costa Health on 7/17, the current positive countywide test rate is 8%.

Applying an 8% positive rate to cohorts of 13 students the result would be 1.04 positives, so it seems pretty clear that right off the bat many cohorts will meet the criteria for the immediate 14-day quarantine of that cohort.  Many more than one of the 1,260 cohorts in the district are certainly going to be affected early on in the school year.

Remember, even just two positive cohorts requires a school to revert to distance learning.

Also, an entire district closure happens when 25% of schools close, which would be 6 of AUSD’s 25 schools, it is readily apparent that a few positives will result in the district meeting the 6 school threshold to close the district quite quickly.

Even if the infection rate is cut in half to 4%, that is still about 700 positive throughout the AUSD population of students and staff.  It only takes as few as 2 positives to close a school and so as few as 12 positives can close six schools and thus the whole district.

The missing key to the governor’s positive test criteria is how will any school find out about any person’s positive test results?

Unless schools themselves test every person entering campus and maintain the results thereof, then the heath of everyone on site will be left up to parents reporting to the school the medical condition of their children. Certainly, the first thought of a parent with a sick child will be childcare and not to call the school to report it. And what about asymptomatic positives? Without testing they will never be found.

While we all want to return to the days prior to corona virus, we must keep in mind that our hope does not out weigh the fact that the corona virus is out there, people transmit it easily, unknowingly, and it will not stop simply because we wish it to.

It is also clear that even if a vaccine is produced, it will likely not be 100% effective and on top of that there may well be a large percentage of parents who will refuse it even if it were 100% effective.  That said, the new normal may be permanent distance learning for a large portion of our student population if, hopefully, being vaccinated becomes a requirement for in-class learning.  Developing a strong distance learning model is imperative.

AUSD needs to get real and go all in on distance learning now.  It is prudent to consider that the new normal for all of 2021 will likely be solely distance learning and to put all effort into making that model work.

Superintendent Anello said that many parents want in class teaching and that the social and emotional needs of the students are a major concern.  But in-class teaching may actually cause emotional harm, really.  Has it been explained to parents how in-class teaching will be done?  The students will be practically seat-belted into their chairs, they will not be able to touch anyone, share anything, or play in any groups, they even need to each their lunches alone at their desks.  They won’t be able to mix with their friends, before, during, or after school.  They will constantly be admonished to keep their masks on, don’t do that, stay over there, etc.

The governor requires that every school day, that  anyone entering the campus must receive and pass a health screen, what emotional toll will that take?  Will a student’s cohort’s parents be told that a classmate of their child didn’t pass the health screen, does AUSD plan to inform parents when that happens?  Since cohorts can’t be mixed, what is the protocol for when a teacher is absent?  Oh, and while the governor says that K-2 students are only encouraged to wear masks rather than being required to, mask wearing in public is required for everyone over the age of two, will AUSD require all K-12 students to wear masks?  The governor’s Pandemic Plan states that, “Over the course of the pandemic, most schools will likely face physical closure at some point…”, have the parents been informed that in-class learning will be variable and unpredictable at all levels from classroom, to school, to district?

I would really appreciate a reply to my questions, they are not rhetorical.

I believe that if all parents were provided with a clear picture of their child’s likely in-class learning experience and emotional challenges, that many of those parents who may have wanted in-class learning back in May would not feel that way now.

Sincerely,

Mark Hadox

Antioch Resident and Parent of AUSD graduates

OPINION

By Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The assaults on California property owners and taxpayers never stop. And once again the California Legislature has advanced a massive tax increase at the last possible moment when they thought no one was paying attention.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA11), approved by the California Legislature, takes away Proposition 13 protections that California families have under current law and replaces them with a billion-dollar tax increase. Voters will have an opportunity to reject this scheme come November, as ACA11 will appear on the ballot as Proposition 19.

After the historic passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians finally had certainty about their future property tax liability because increases in the “taxable value” of property were limited to 2 percent per year. Property would be reassessed to market value only when it changed hands. To prevent families from getting hit with huge tax increases, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 58 in 1986, changing the state constitution to ensure that transfers of certain property between parents and children could occur without triggering the sticker shock of reassessment.

Under Prop. 58, a home of any value and up to a million dollars of assessed value of other property may be transferred between parents and children without reassessment. Proposition 19 (2020) would repeal Proposition 58 (1986) and force the reassessment of inherited or transferred property within families. The only exception is if the property is used as the principal residence of the person to whom it was transferred, and even that exclusion is capped.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the repeal of the “intergenerational transfer protections” guaranteed by Props. 58 and 193 will result in 40,000 to 60,000 families getting hit with higher property taxes every year. Prop. 19’s massive tax increase has been included in this initiative to offset another proposed constitutional change: the expansion of the ability for older homeowners to move to a replacement home and transfer their base-year property tax assessment from their previous home to the new property. While this “portability” expansion has some merit, voters rejected this idea in 2018. Oddly, the backers of the proposal think they can sell it again by adding a tax increase.

As ill-advised as Proposition 19 is as matter of policy, the contortions executed by the California Legislature to place it on the ballot were nothing short of bizarre. The primary sponsor of ACA11 was the California Association of Realtors (CAR) which first wrote a similar proposal as an initiative and gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. It appears CAR is motivated by the desire to churn more home sales, even at the expense of a multi-billion-dollar tax increase.

For reasons related to placating progressive Democrats in the Legislature as well as labor unions, CAR wanted to withdraw its previously qualified initiative and have the Legislature replace it with a similar tax increase proposal.

But something funny happened on the way to the ballot. CAR missed the constitutional deadline for withdrawing its initiative, so as a matter of law, it appeared that there would be two nearly identical measures on the ballot, causing confusion, not to mention additional costs. So, Secretary of State Padilla dutifully took the CAR measure off the ballot even though he had already certified it under the procedures set forth in the California Constitution.

Our current political establishment ignores all rules and laws when it comes to achieving a desired political end. And, as usual, the desired end here is billions of dollars in higher property taxes.

By Allen Payton

This year’s Independence Day, today, July 4, 2020 marks the 244th birthday of our nation. It was on this date in 1776 that our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence sending a message to England that we would no longer be ruled by their king, that we would be a sovereign nation and each of our citizens sovereign people, as well.

In Antioch, we also celebrate the 169th anniversary of the naming of our city, today. It was on this date in 1851, 75 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, that the townspeople gathered together with co-founder Rev. William Wiggins Smith to rename the town from Smith’s Landing to Antioch, after the city in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians. They did that out of respect to Smith’s twin brother, Rev. Joseph Horton Smith who had died the previous year. In 1849, after traveling from Boston, the Smith brothers each purchased 160 acres from Dr. John Marsh along the Antioch waterfront, where the city’s historic, downtown Rivertown District is located, today.

According to the book entitled, Looking Back – Tales of Old Antioch and Other Places by Earl Hohlmayer, “On the fourth of July, 1851 a basket picnic was held at the residence of W.W. Smith, then standing on the high ground…The all-absorbing topic of the day was ‘What shall we name our town?’ Between thirty and forty men, women and children gathered together from far and near… W.W. Smith proposed that, inasmuch as the first settlers were disciples of Christ, and one of them had died and was buried on the land, that it be given a Bible name in his honor, and suggested ‘Antioch’, (a Syria town where two important rivers meet and where the followers of Christ were first called Christians), and by united acclamation it was so christened.”

A historic mural was commissioned by the Antioch City Council in the late 1990’s which includes a scene from the July 4, 1851 picnic which can be seen above. It’s located on the wall of the 505 Building next to the parking lot at F and W. Second Streets in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown.

Although our community, state and nation currently face health, economic and other challenges, the future looks bright and we can celebrate our freedoms, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, although somewhat restricted, lately. Enjoy celebrating and remember to thank God for the freedoms we get to exercise and experience each day in our country.

Happy Independence Day and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Freedom!

“Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Psalm 94:8

“Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29

By Allen Payton

As part of his new statewide health orders issued on Wednesday, July 1, California Governor Gavin Newsom included a new requirement that “*Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities” during worship services. (Note: The asterisk does not refer to anything else in the document) See https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf

Under the section entitled Considerations for Places of Worship it reads, “Discontinue singing (in rehearsals, services, etc.), chanting, and other practices and performances where there is increased likelihood for transmission from contaminated exhaled droplets.

The state’s document, entitled COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies refers to the practice of one’s faith as “personal” as if it’s not supposed to be done in public, like other activities such as protesting.

“Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” the document reads.

However, in response after contacting county officials, leaders of Golden Hills Community Church, one of the larger churches in Eastern Contra Costa County with campuses in Brentwood and Antioch which will hold their first in-person service in 17 weeks on Sunday, July 5, shared with their members that singing while wearing masks will be allowed.

In an email on Friday, June 3 Senior Pastor Phil Ward wrote, “This week both the state and the county announced a ban on ‘singing and chanting’ in houses of worship. Since we now have the ability to gather for in-person worship, and since singing is an essential aspect of Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), we found this prohibition unreasonable because it dictates what is permissible in worship. As a result, we reached out to the governing authorities to express our concern. In response, we were told that singing is permitted so long as masks are being worn—something we already planned to do.”

Although the sanctuary at their Brentwood campus has a capacity of 1,700 people and could easily accommodate 350 people while social distancing, the church will be following the limits of only 100 people per service. They will also utilize their former sanctuary, now used as a multipurpose room, which can also meet the state and county’s limitations of 100 people maximum or 25% of room capacity whichever is less. Finally, the church will be offering four services this Sunday and adding a fifth service, beginning next Saturday night, July 11.

Debate Over Following All Government Laws & Orders

International evangelist and San Francisco native Mario Murillo wrote this week in response to the governor’s order that Christians should not follow such laws or orders because they are evil and go against what God teaches His followers.

“I can’t think of a worse idea than to stop praise and worship because Gavin Newsom told you to,” he wrote. “It’s time to wake up to the sad truth that California has declared war on the church. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to obey them no matter what? Absolutely not. And it is shocking how many believers do not know their Bible or have been given false teaching. There is no verse in the Bible that tells you to obey evil government or laws.”

Many believers often quote a section in the book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7 to support following the government’s orders: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, Murillo quotes other Bible verses that offer the opposite perspective, that believers are only to follow rulers who aren’t evil and laws that aren’t evil.

“It seems to say that we are to honor government in every form, right? Wrong,” he wrote. “Lost in all the quoting of this verse on submission to government is the most important part: The description of the ruling authority.”

Murillo shares that description writing, “they are not a terror to good works” and “they praise good works.”

He also shared what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3, “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, but do not do.”

“Do what they say, but don’t partake of their hypocrisy,” Murillo explains. “Watch them for that moment when they cross the line and come between you and your God.  Just as our conscience should drive us to obey the law, we should also know when our conscience tells us not to obey an evil law.”

“Here’s when Peter reached that tipping point, speaking to those very same Pharisees,” he continues, quoting Acts 4:18-20, “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’”

Murillo then quoted Acts 5:29 writing, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”

Newsom’s Order is an Evil Law That Must Not Be Followed

“God not only does not endorse evil government: He will have no part in it,” Murillo continues. He then quotes Psalm 94:20 writing, “Can a corrupt throne be allied with you—a throne that brings on misery by its decrees? The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”

“There is your answer. A corrupt throne (government) cannot be allied with God,” he wrote. “In fact, evil laws are the worst form of sin. They provide legitimacy to evil.”

Murillo concludes by quoting German pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident and Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Wearing a Mask While Singing or Chanting Works

So, ordering followers, of at least Christianity and Judaism, to discontinue singing violates what God wants practiced during worship. As it is written in Psalms 98:4, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Therefore Governor Newsom’s order is an evil law that must not be followed. But, for safety’s sake the spirit of the order can be met by wearing masks while singing or chanting in church.