Religious Rights vs. Public Health

 The introduction of the COVID-19 pandemic into our day-to-day lives has been a challenge for people all over the world. Throughout the course of this semester, we have especially examined the way that restrictions on gatherings have translated into restrictions on religious activities. On October 8th, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced new COVID-19 regulations that reinstated restrictions to gatherings in what he called “clusters”. This cluster action initiative is designed to target areas in New York that have become COVID hotspots. These areas are identified by a high density of COVID cases, these areas are then identified as a “Red Zone” “Orange Zone” or “Yellow Zone”. Based on the danger presented in each cluster, different restrictions are applied, which limit mass gatherings, occupancy in houses of worship, and whether or not businesses and schools will be open. Many of the neighborhoods identified in these clusters are Hasidic communities which are a sub-group within the Orthodox Jewish tradition. Governor Cuomo even told CNN “The cluster is a primarily Orthodox cluster”. 

These restrictions were introduced the day before Shemini Atzeret, a Jewish holiday celebrating the end of the week-long celebration of Sukkot, which “commemorates the dwelling of the Israelites in temporary booths (sukkot in Hebrew) during their 40-year sojourn in the Sinai desert”. Many Hasidim have protested the new restrictions and even argued that they were specifically targeted at their own religious celebrations. The celebration of this specific holiday requires a prayer group of at least 10 people, and depending on which zone the Temple is located in, different Jewish communities would not be able to celebrate this holiday. Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish Studies Department at Dartmouth College spoke about the laws saying “These regulations come at a moment as if they are taking away everything — Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkos, Simchas Torah,” (Religion News Service). Hasidim in the neighborhoods targeted by these new regulations have protested arguing that they are an obvious attempt to suppress their religious exercise. 

We must acknowledge that any restriction on mass gatherings will place a burden on religious practices, as well as many other facets of life including concerts and parties. The major difference between this and another type of large social gathering The question, in this case, is less about whether or not the regulations place a burden on the free exercise of religion in general, and more about whether or not the regulations specifically target the religious exercise of the Jewish community. There is a very clear motivation for these regulations: to curb the spread of COVID-19 in a state that has had more cases than some entire countries. It is this motivation that speaks directly to the question of neutrality. However, the question of neutrality is multifaceted. The first question is whether or not the laws/policies/regulations are neutral on their face and the second is whether or not they are neutral in practice. If the neighborhoods were identified simply by the number of police reports citing large gatherings, the case could be made that the policies were designed to target the religious expression of the Orthodox Jewish community. In reality, the high-risk clusters were identified using empirical data about the number of  COVID cases per capita, meaning there was no way to specifically target any one group of people over the other. The question of whether or not these regulations are neutral in practice is more complex. Governor Cuomo’s comments about how the “...issue is with that ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community” acknowledges that on some level, he was attempting to target the group because of their issues with his regulations. This then begs the question, is the state of New York’s interest in public health more important than the religious exercise of the Hasidim? 

 In cases such as Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith,  O’lone v. Estate of Shabazz, and Reynolds v. United States, the Court has decided that the government's interest in maintaining security and safety is second to none, even when the pursuit of this interest involves infringing on the religious rights of citizens. Governor Cuomo and the state of New York benefit from this legal precedent because it reinforces the idea that when the government has to infringe on the religious rights of some citizens in service of the greater good, they are not violating the rights outlined in the Constitution. In Smith, the court was dealing specifically with the state’s public health concerns and reinforced the distinction between belief and conduct. Members of the Orthodox Jewish community maintain the right to believe in all the principles of their religion, but the state reserves the right to regulate their actual conduct. Do you believe that there is a substantial difference between religious belief and religious conduct? Should exceptions be made for religious conduct during a global pandemic? 

As this is a public health emergency unlike anything else we’ve seen in the last century, I think it is reasonable to expect that everyone will have to make sacrifices to ensure the health and safety of the most number of people. If this means that the government reserves the right to restrict all conduct, including religious conduct, until this disease can be controlled then I’m comfortable giving them that authority. I can also understand how it's extremely difficult to ask people to put their lives and values on hold indefinitely waiting for a solution to a problem we still know very little about. Overall, I think these regulations are justified, but I am curious to hear other thoughts about whether or not they are justified and how far the authority given to the government can stretch.