On Monday the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the request of Calvary Chapel in Dayton Valley, a rural Nevada church who sought to legally battle the ability of the government to limit the occupancy of churches during the COVID-19 pandemic after they had recently been victorious in an appeals court that had ruled this limitation to be unconstitutional, citing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The appeals court saw it unjust that the church was being held to stricter standards than casinos and other places of public gatherings. While most churches and places of worship have been capped at fifty people, other places of public gathering like casinos received a cap that took into account a percentage of their fire capacity limit. Attorneys were seeking to receive some uniformity as recent court rulings have wavered, some favoring COVID safety precautions, and others the freedom of religion. The current capacity of most businesses are mandated to be held at 25%, a limit the church has so far been able to avoid. Although the health and safety of the citizens of this country is expected to be a top priority for the government, the attorneys made it clear that our first amendment rights should never be put on hold. Places of work have been running at full capacity, with the rule of social distancing, so placing a limit of places of religious worship seems to go against the rights of the religious parishioners.
The main issue at hand is whether or not the First Amendment rights of the prisoners at this church are being compromised. At a hard cap of 50, or even a percentage based limit, may impose upon a given person's ability to worship, and may in fact result in them being unable to worship. On the other hand, the other issue of the safety of everyone during these times of the Covid pandemic also looms large. Although the supreme court has refused to receive this case, it still is very interesting as it pits against each other new precautions and roughly two-hundred and fifty year old rules that are the framework of our nation.
In the event that this church has enough parishioners that a number restriction causes some people to be unable to worship during the hours of the day possible, I do believe that this is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. No law set forth by our government should restrict the religious worship of any person. However, if the parishioners are able to spread out their times of worship throughout the day so that all are able to worship and a number limit is held, I do believe that this is the safest compromise. It is also important that the danger of this virus is understood, as places of religious worship are also normally places in which people come into very close proximity with each other, and often make physical contact. If too many people are allowed in the place of worship, it might make it unsafe for the elderly, who are way more likely to be seriously affected by this disease. This could be something that would then prevent them from being able to worship. While this issue is one that is not very common as a big part of it happening is due to the COVID virus that is only a little over a year old, it does relate to other cases in the way that it reflects upon the free exercise clause in the first amendment, which clearly states that there can not be any restrictions placed by the state on ones religious worshipping. There are many implications for if this case eventually is heard by the Supreme Court, as a ruling that the church must obey the COVID restrictions could suggest that further suppression of our First Amendment rights could be subject to oppression during any future pandemic or national emergency. However, if ruled in favor of the church, this would surely open the gates for other groups to claim that they do not have to obey the limit laws by stating that they are too undergoing religious practices. This is surely a slippery slope. I do however see the importance of this case being that the main goal of this case is to ensure that there is no precedent ever for the government to suppress our religious freedoms. In order to keep our First Amendment rights intact and protect ourselves as citizens against our government , a ruling in the favor of the church seems to be the best option.
6 comments:
In this controversy, it is necessary to distinguish between the government prohibiting individuals from practicing their religion versus the government prohibiting large groups for public safety. Due to the fact that places of worship have offered their services outside, online and in limited capacity settings, this is evidence to prove that this is not a governmental attack on the first amendment but rather for safety. In terms of neutrality, while other secular spheres face less precautions it is because houses of worship, individuals are in enclosed spaces, close together, singing and often touching each other, not because of religious discrimination. Finally, the state had a “compelling interest” in mitigating the spread of the virus.
I agree with what Anna has said in her comment and she highlights some really good points. The State's primary interest and goal is the migrate the spread of Covid by taking precautionary measures to ensure that has occurred. I do not believe the Nevada has violated the church's or individuals First Amendment right because they have not said that churches are unable to hold meetings, at least to my knowledge. Covid has really highlighted that church sessions can occur online or outside; and capping religious attendance to 25% of the maximum capacity is not because the State has decided that they do not want a lot of people attending church rather that is the maximum amount of people that can held safety in that space. And for the example of casinos being able to have 50% is because they can manage that many people while still enforcing Covid restrictions.
Actions by the federal government are more aimed at creating a standardized set of criteria for social distancing to ensure public safety. The limitations that the church is experiencing are being placed on many other institutions so the expression of religion is not single handedly facing discrimination. Meaning that there is a sense of neutrality so the federal government is not trying to control the church. It is to my understanding that the government did not say to stop the exercise of religion but rather find a new alternative to meet due to the pandemic. I do not believe that the First Amendment has been violated in this case.
I like how the word “neutrality” is being used in this context because COVID and its societal symptoms have been extremely difficult to navigate over the last year. I find it interesting how morality was used as a weighing point between churches and casinos in Nevada when determining the precautions to allow with gatherings. This approach does not necessarily seem as neutral, and that in itself seems as if religious gatherings are being given some sort of special consideration from the get-go. Again, the government is setting the precedent for a situation whose potential has never even been dreamt of. It is a hard thing to balance since the government has to think about what is best for everyone while having to try no to step on any rights simultaneously.
The governments job is to prevent the spread of COVID by creating a criteria for social distancing. Places of worship have offered different ways to worship, trying to limit large group gatherings for the public safety. I don't believe this is an attack on a persons First Amendment rights, but a precaution to limit the spread of the virus. In church you are very close together in a confined space, singing, touching a gospel, the eucharist, and each other. Whereas in a casino or grocery store are much bigger places that can hold many more people that also can keep their distance from each other. It is impossible for the government to set a precedent that can make everyone happy.
This is an interesting argument because under any other circumstances, it would be a fair use of one's First Amendment rights. But considering the fact that we are in a pandemic, it has become the government's job to put policies into place that will stop the spread of COVID. Therefore, I think that limiting in person religious attendance is not unconstitutional given today's situation. The religious communities have been given many other options to practice their faith in the best way they can while also doing it safely. Everyone in society is making sacrifices right now because of the pandemic in attempts to stop the spread and insure safety. This does not appear to be an attack on one's First Amendment rights as the main intention is to keep our country as safe as possible during these times.
Post a Comment