>“The virus, we believe, is politically motivated. We hold our religious rights dear and we are going to assemble no matter what someone says.”
A virus with a political inclination / motivation. That's a new one.
A virus with a political inclination / motivation. That's a new one.
There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that applies here.
Yes, if the government--at any level--was forbidding people from meeting for religious reasons for an indefinite period simply "just because," that would be a violation of our freedoms and something to be gravely concerned about.
Restrictions on religion not based on the religious belief itself have been allowed since the founding of our republic. You can't have a religion where a "sincerely-held belief" is that one parishioner in attendance gets murdered. Or that smashing in people's front doors is a sign of holiness. Religious buildings, while exempt from property tax, must still comply with building, electrical, plumbing, and life safety codes.
In this situation, given that it is content-neutral--all gatherings of size are prohibited--and time-limited and in the furtherance of a major social interest (inhibiting the spread of a brand new virus), I think it withstands Constitutional scrutiny.
The people must simply trust that forfeiting a necessary aspect of democratic health will be correct in hindsight.
I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere.
In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does.
However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.
This concern was ameliorated by a) pointing out that any restrictions have been applied without any discrimination in that regard, and b) with the full assurances of the state of Pennsylvania that the work of the church is vital and should continue in this crisis, even if in-person services are not currently a part of that mix. (There was a conference call and everything!)
It's really funny how there is this natural aversion to politics within (not only) American conservatism but American society at large, as if the involvement of politics somehow diminishes the authenticity of some event instead of being the natural platform to organise collective action.
For example, I see nothing in that sentence that alludes to an aversion to politics.
They would tell you nothing about if it was indeed part of a conspiracy / biowarfare / bioterrorism / ineptitude / ecological disruption ...
There's a myth circulating that the danger of the virus has been exaggerated for political purposes. I'm sure this is what he's referring to.
I doubt he would hold to that opinion if he saw it with his own eyes, so I am assuming he hasn't yet. Unfortunately for the members of his church, they are all about to see it with their own eyes because they are in New Orleans.