Over the summer, three churches in northern California challenged the ban on singing in church, put in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Calvary Chapel in Ukiah, Calvary Chapel in Fort Bragg, and River of Life Assembly of God Church in Oroville, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), filed for a preliminary injunction in July against California’s singing ban. Governor Gavin Newsom issued an order to ban singing in churches because singing and chanting, “present an increased likelihood for transmission of Covid-19 through contaminated exhaled droplets,” according to state health officials. This ban was thought to be necessary after the CDC, “studied how coronavirus spread from one member to 87% of the singers at a Washington Choir Practice.” However, before the ban on singing, the ACLJ expressed that these churches were following CDC guidelines to combat the spread of the virus by mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, and temperature screenings during all services. The ban on singing and chanting in church did not apply to the large scale protests occurring in California at the time, which Governor Newsom shows an unwavering support for. The Churches believe Governor Newsom’s ban is a direct target against Christians and the way they are allowed to practice their beliefs, as singing is an integral part of worship guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The Churches argue that the ban on singing and chanting is unconstitutional because it violates their right to free exercise of religion established in the First Amendment. Although the Covid-19 pandemic is a very pressing issue at this time in the United States, the ACLJ asserts that a virus should not suspend any constitutional rights under any circumstances. On the other hand, the state of California and state health officials believe that the singing ban is not a matter of constitutionality, rather a necessary action to help reduce the spread of coronavirus. The state health officials of California suggested other ways to worship that would allow singing or chanting, such as internet streaming where people do not need to congregate in an indoor area. However, the Churches believe that it is their constitutional right to exercise their First Amendment right to determine whether they will congregate together and sing as a type of worship. Under no circumstances will their First Amendment right be infringed upon by the state. The First Amendment clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the case of the three Churches, they believe their constitutional right to free exercise is in fact being prohibited by Governor Newsom’s ban on singing and chanting, as these are essential elements of worship and practicing their religious beliefs.
As this issue continues in California, I believe that the California ban on singing and chanting in churches should be struck down as it infringes upon the Churches’ guaranteed First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Although the Covid-19 pandemic is a serious problem in the country, a suspension of what are guaranteed rights is unconstitutional. This is an important issue to address because if the ban is left standing, there is a potential for a dangerous precedent to be set based on the outcome of this case. If states have the authority to ban or prohibit aspects of the first amendment, such as the free exercise of religion in this case, what is next? A precedent where state governments use power to ban or impede constitutional rights they may disagree with, would be detrimental to the individual freedoms every citizen of the United States holds.
The ban on singing and chanting in church also undermines the separation of church and state and the intersection between law and religion. State law cannot supersede federal law, which grants the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If Governor Newsom’s ban is allowed, state law would essentially be trumping federal law. The 1940 case Cantwell v State of Connecticut further demonstrates how this ban is unconstitutional. Religious soliciting was argued upon in this case, the state attempting to prohibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from soliciting with pamphlets and other religious books or phonographs. The court rules that states have the power to regulate such soliciting such as time and place, but they do not have the power to infringe upon guaranteed religious freedom of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the case of the church singing ban, the state does not have the constitutional power to institute this ban, which encroaches upon the Churches’ freedom to exercise their religion in any way.
Along with a dangerous precedent and lack of acknowledgment to separation of church and state, I do not believe the California ban on singing and chanting is a neutral law. This ban is not applicable to all groups of people, rather it specifically targets churches and their members, infringing upon the way they practice religion. To make this law neutral, Governor Newsom would have to apply the ban of singing and chanting to other gatherings of people, such as the large-scale protests occurring in California, where social distancing is sometimes difficult to achieve, and mask wearing is not always universally practiced. The ACLJ however, described the church members as adhering to CDC guidelines including mask wearing and social distancing. The lack of neutrality of this ban further demonstrates its unconstitutionality. Even amid the coronavirus pandemic, the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shall not be hindered or infringed upon in any way, and therefore, the California ban on singing and chanting is unconstitutional, and must be overturned.
5 comments:
I have to disagree with Jenny’s take on this case. I can understand the frustration of religious groups who do not understand how other groups and protests are allowed to carry on when they are not allowed to sing. However, I do not believe that this ban is targeting Christianity as it is universal to all groups that are singing or chanting and it is not preventing them from singing in their homes or other places, as long as it is not in large gatherings. The Founders of the Constitution along with the most recent court cases we have read largely draw on the notion that freedoms and liberties in regard to religion cannot be infringed upon UNLESS it threatens “peace and good order”. Clearly, the singing and chanting could exacerbate the spread of COVID and is not what is best for society. The Cantwell v Connecticut case was different from this one in that the solicitation by Jehovah’s witnesses did not put anyone in harm’s way, unless of course there was a physical altercation between people of different religious backgrounds, but it did not harm people in the same manner in which COVID could spread and lead to the loss of many lives. On a more personal note, towards the end of summer my own church went back to in-person services where we do not sing but instead just listen to the organist play the music. We do not see this in a negative light but rather something we have to do for our elderly members and the greater good.
In this case, I agree with McKenzie that the singing ban should be maintained. The ban does not appear to be targeting Christianity, it just seems that in this case, the groups that are bringing the case to court happen to all be Christian. Additionally, I believe that COVID-19 spreading further is an issue that would disrupt peace and good order, and therefore, it is necessary to infringe slightly on the peoples' right to the free exercise of religion. Finally, I do not believe that maintaining the ban creates a dangerous precedent because such large-scale pandemics such as COVID are not super common occurrences (hopefully that will remain true) so state governments and officials would not be able to impede on constitutional rights they simply do not agree with.
I also disagree with the position of this blog because it is failing to recognize that the restrictions on certain practices within a religious worship setting at this time serve the purpose of protecting the lives of those involved. A ban on singing in churches does not prohibit worshippers from continuing to gather to pray or believe in their religion, but simply modifies the practice in a way that lessens the chances of anyone falling ill in a time of a global pandemic. This regulation is also not being applied to only one particular religion, so the idea of this leading to a slippery slope that would allow the government to ban religious practices with which they do not agree does not seem to apply in this case. As far as I know, most religions have some sort of musical component to their services, so this would apply across the board. If this were not the case, it may be a different scenario in which one particular religion is being discriminated against. As we have discussed, no right is absolute and when the safety of the American people is jeopardized, like it is now, different restrictions must be put in place.
I agree with your opinion of how this case should be decided. By banning a religion from one of their most predominant means of worship, the state would have undoubtably crossed the line. I agree with you that the state is targeting churches and their members. If they can place a ban on singing in church, are they going to extend that ban to singing in the street? Are they going to ban singing totally? What about talking? Will they ban talking to the cashier at the grocery store? It opens a door to a whole realm of possibilities on the COVID bans within churches and within the community. It is a scary slippery slope to imagine what other bans will be drawn up. The state does not fund the church so it hardly seems fair to MANDATE what goes on inside the building. I think that because the church is still adhering to the social distancing and mask protocols, that it is not placing any other citizen in the line of danger. Just because times are unprecedented, does not give the state power to violate the amendments put into place to protect the rights of the people.
I think Newson’s ban on Church singing is unconstitutional. As Jenny stated, the governor was not concerned singing/chanting during large school protests and did not apply the banning to all gatherings of people. This makes it appear as if he is trying to suppress religious activity and thus infringing on the member’s liberty to freely exercise. Furthermore, I believe that Newson’s argument over health concerns is weakened due to the fact that the Church members are practicing social distancing and wearing masks.
Post a Comment