What About Everyone Else?

     Last Tuesday, on October 15^th, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a decision regarding whether or not it was within the power of “both the federal government and Colorado leaders” to restrict religious gatherings and regulate their conduct. Two churches, the Denver Bible Church and the Community Baptist Church, filed suit against their local government for violating their right to freely exercise their religion. The conclusion reached by the Colorado District Court was in favor of the plaintiffs. The ruling stated that, despite the reasonable concern of the state for the health and safety of its citizens, “government officials, whether in the executive or judicial branch” may not “treat religious worship as any less critical or essential than other human endeavors.” However, even though this instance seems like a breakthrough for those who feel they are being unreasonably burdened by government constraints, there is a limitation to the decision. This limitation is that the freedom from restrictions, those having to do with “occupancy… and face mask requirements,” is only applied to the two churches involved in the case. All other religious groups are still subject to the state and federal restrictions.

    The primary concern that requires attention in this matter has to do with the application of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. For those unfamiliar, or lacking in knowledge of the constitution, it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the United States, citizens enjoy the right to practice their religion, free of restriction, given that its rituals do not conflict with the law. However, there have been notable exceptions to this idea, such as the Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. As we are all aware, there is, unfortunately, no uniform and consistent stance on the function and meaning of this Amendment; and because of this, we must draw on the prior reasoning of the court in its interpretation of the clause, as well as the historical context in which it was written.

    We know from the case of Reynolds v. United States that there must be quite a compelling state interest in order to restrict the rights of citizens. In the case of Mr. Reynolds, he was a Mormon who thought it was his religious duty to practice polygamy. The court ruled that this would pose a threat to the social condition of monogamous society and therefor could not be allowed. We also know that there does exist room for religious exemptions to established law. This is made clear in the case of Sherbert v. Verner. Mrs. Sherbert was a Seventh Day Adventist who was denied government unemployment benefits because she refused to work on Saturdays. The lower courts agreed with the South Carolina Employment and Security Commission’s decision, but the Supreme Court eventually overruled them and made an exception for Mrs. Sherbert. From these cases, we can gather that it isn’t inconsistent or unreasonable to grant the Denver Bible Church and the Community Baptist Church an exception to the government’s current restrictions. The question however, is whether or not this is a neutral application of the First Amendment to all religious organizations, which I cannot say that it is. 

    In the case of Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, it was ruled that all federally funded university programs should receive funding, given that they met the institutions criteria. The case followed a religious publication group who wanted school funding for their program, the same as all the secular programs. The takeaway from this case was that if one organization was to receive funding, than they all had to receive funding. The same rule should carry over to the issue of which religious institutions deserve to be exempt from the state and federal laws restricting the amount people and conduct of those people in attendance at religious ceremonies. In my previous post, I wrote about why churches should be treated no different than supermarkets with regard to the maximum allowable occupancy of other businesses; if the supermarkets are allowed to be open and at 50% capacity, than so should churches. The same rule should apply across the board. If one church or religious institution is allowed to be open and does not have to comply with the laws regarding distancing and masks, than neither should any other.