In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, California issued regulations that banned large social gatherings with an exception for faith-based service gatherings. This exception permits outdoor services, with masks and proper social distancing procedures in place, and indoor services, as long as they do not exceed 100 attendees or 25% of the capacity of the space, whichever is lower. Despite these restrictions, Grace Community Church, a megachurch located in Los Angeles, has continued to hold large, indoor gatherings that do not require masks or social distancing. Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit on August 12th against Grace Community Church to enforce the safety restrictions, but the judge denied the county’s request. This ruling prevents the county from enforcing the ban on large indoor gatherings until a full hearing on September 4, 2020. The judge did, however, order congregants to wear masks and social distance.
After the initial court victory, Pastor John MacArthur held a large indoor service on August 16th, telling his congregants, “The good news is, you’re here, you’re not distancing, and you’re not wearing masks.” Research continues to show the dangers of indoor church services becoming “super-spreading events”: in Washington state, a choir practice led to 45 singers contracting COVID-19, including two people who died. In attempting to enforce the state regulations, L.A. County echoes these concerns. L.A. County public health officer Dr. Mantu Davis said that he reviewed images and videos of Grace Community Church’s indoor, maskless services, and he believes “it is only a matter of time-- if it has not already happened-- until there is a significant outbreak of COVID-19 cases among the attendees.”
As states attempt to respond to the Coronavirus pandemic and implement regulations to limit the spread of the virus, they have collided with the thin line between church and state in America. Lawyers for Grace Community Church argue that “church is essential,” and these restrictions place churches “under assault from our own government simply for holding church.” They argue that the health order unconstitutionally burdens the right of churches to worship, especially when the county has allowed other businesses to operate and protests to take place. The key question at hand is whether the state interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 is compelling enough to override the First Amendment right to free exercise. Additionally, we must ask what constitutes an attack on free exercise? Does Grace Community Church have a constitutional right to complete and unfettered free exercise of religion? No constitutional right is absolute, however, so in my opinion, temporary restrictions on the churches worship services do not translate to a denial of their right to free exercise.
The state of California already created exceptions for churches to practice in person, albeit at a limited capacity; this grants churches, like Grace Community Church, safe and viable options for worship. A CNN reporter asked MacArthur why the church doesn’t “get creative” with their response to the pandemic “so you can obey… ‘god’s law,’ but also obey public health regulations?” MacArthur responded by saying that they trust their congregants to make “adult decisions” about their health: “Nobody’s forcing anything, they’re here because they want to be.” In the midst of a global pandemic, however, individual decisions have collective consequences. The personal and “adult” decisions that MacArthur spoke of, could have an incredibly damaging impact on the health of others. Research has shown, as Dr. Davis outlined that Grace Community Church’s indoor, not socially distanced, maskless services are a potential hotspot for the virus to spread. In an opinion piece for The Hill, Law Professor Jonathan Turley argues that “there is nothing more compelling than battling a pandemic,” and limiting gathering size has proven to be highly effective at doing so.
The context for this issue is everything. The right to free exercise under the Constitution is not absolute, but can be restricted when there is a compelling state interest. The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and the continued indoor services of Grace Community Church pose a danger to the general public of Los Angeles County, beyond the few hundred individuals that attend the services. If the issue were confined just to the health and safety of those consenting adults that attend the services, there would be little to no state interest to intervene, but Turley points out that the “free exercise of religion does not allow dangerous acts, even if they are part of a demonstration of faith.” These acts of faith-- worshipping in person and inside, not wearing a mask, and not social distancing-- pose a significant threat to the congregants and everyone that they come into contact with. In my opinion, the state interest to mitigate the spread of Coronavirus justifies the temporary restrictions on the manner in which Grace Community Church may worship and it therefore does not violate their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. This legal battle is still unfolding as the court will rule on the county’s ability to enforce these restrictions on September 4.
I think that you raise a strong point about the importance of the government's interest in preventing the spread of COVID -19 and I agree with you that the state's interest in mitigating the virus at this time trumps an unfettered freedom of religion. That being said, the California mandate does not deny individuals or congregations the ability to practice their religions just as COVID related restrictions have not denied students from attending school or receiving an education, businesses from operating, or individuals from participating in normal activities. Rather, the mandate placed temporary restrictions on the manner in which these events can safely occur. Thus, the members fo the megachurch's congregation are not denied the ability to practice their religion. It also seems strange to me that the church and its leaders are not more concerned for protecting the health and safety of the vulnerable populations in their communities. As a Christian community that believes in anointing the sick as a holy sacrament and caring for others as a core teaching, it seems as though choosing to irresponsibly gather large groups indoors without masks is a contradiction to practicing the religious freedoms which they claim have been encroached upon.
ReplyDeleteOne trend that I have noticed in all the cases that we have read so far is the emphasis on a compelling government interest in disputes between the church and the state. In this case, I cannot think of any more compelling an interest than protecting residents of California from a deadly pandemic that our top health officials know virtually nothing about. It would be one thing if church members knew enough about COVID to make a reasonable decision about whether or not they are willing to expose themselves but there is still not enough information about this virus available to the public to make a well-informed decision about that. Additionally, in the cases we have read so far the court has upheld the state's right to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on religious exercise, especially when there is a compelling government interest. I think this restrictions placed by LA County are more than reasonable and that the MegaChurch officials should be held accountable for their reckless actions, even if they are in the name of religion.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that no constitutional right is absolute. Likewise to not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, I think that holding services during corona virus also jeopardizes Los Angeles County’s public health and safety. Although the Church believes that they have the right to free exercise, I believe that there is a compelling reason to modify the delivery of their services.
I agree with the points that you raised in your post. I believe that it is important to note that the state’s interest is in keeping the citizens of California safe during this global pandemic while trying to safely return to a sense of normalcy. We are currently in a time when I feel as though keeping the majority safe and preventing the spread of the coronavirus should be at the highest priority. Safely returning to pre-covid daily routines is something that is needed for society. We are able to safely attempt to return to school, eat at a restaurant, go to the mall, and even attend church by following the guidelines provided by the state. It becomes clear that it is not unconstitutional for the state of California to enact these regulations as they are not completely prohibiting the practice of religion and the regulations do not restrict the fi. As Shana said in her post, no constitutional right is absolute. This statement shows that it is not unconstitutional for California to put this specific regulation in place. The members of Grace Community Church’s first amendment right to practice their own religion is not being violated under these regulations as they are still able to meet outside, masked, socially distanced, and in groups of up to one hundred people.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of a "compelling state interest" is intriguing. You certainly make the case that it is important enough an issue to suspend or severely limit church gatherings based on the pandemic. On the surface, I would agree that a worldwide pandemic with lethal consequences would constitute a compelling state interest. However, given what we know know about the virus, I don't know that it is any longer necessary to limit gatherings like the california church. The death rate is lower than one percent, there is currently an issue with large numbers of people who have contacted and even died from COVID that can't even prove they every had it. Most people who have tested positive have proven to be a-symptomatic and those at risk are confined primarily to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions which compromise their immune systems. The vaccine is a long ways off and some have even suggested that the best way to get over the virus is to start going back to normal in order to build up a kind of herd immunity. On top of all this, some doctors are worried that deaths of despair, like drug overdoses, suicide, etc.. could end up exceeding those caused by the virus. The last point is where I would like to call attention back to the states interest. Be it that there is a strong correlation between the unemployment and isolation with suicide, and deaths of despair are just as problematic as the virus itself, would it not be better to start loosening up on the restrictions? If yes, then wouldn't you also let up restrictions on churches as well?
ReplyDeleteI think Emma makes a really strong argument by pointing out that disallowing megachurches from hosting gatherings of hundreds of people is not necessarily disallowing individuals to practice their religion. Students have been sent home for COVID spreading precautions; businesses are only allowed to function with a certain indoor capacity. If these establishments can adapt, so can the megachurch. While I agree with Shana that these large services should not be allowed, I think the megachurch makes an interesting point by pointing out that the city of Los Angeles allowed BLM protests that were just as big, if not bigger. Where should the city of Los Angeles draw the line, considering both topics are both very personal and polarizing?
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the points made in this article. The state provided exemptions specifically in the law for religious practices making sure that religious congregations still have the opportunity to practice thus not violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment. If this were to be taken to the supreme court, I believe that the court would side with the state because the original founders believed in the free exercise of religion but not to the point were it could endanger peace and order which is supported by Thomas Jefferson's " A bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia". The document states that the government has the right to intervene when religious practice or establishment could endanger "peace and good order". In this case, Covid-19 and the states responsibility to protect its citizens from a global pandemic is the peace/order where these religious meetings are threatening that and thus they have the right to apply sanctions onto their gatherings.
ReplyDelete