Heaven or Hospital?

    

    The coronavirus pandemic has altered every aspect of society from mask protocols to social distancing guidelines. Restrictions on large gatherings have been imposed in order to mitigate the spread of the virus and places of worship are not exempt. On February 10th, 2021, a new act was signed by the governor of Arkansas to prevent the state or local officials from ratifying restrictions on religious groups and their place of worship during the pandemic. Prior, there has been pushback by Arkansas and federal law that houses of worship should follow the same regulations as secular gatherings to evade religious targeting, but this new law removes all restrictions. The bill proclaims that the government “shall not prohibit or limit a religious organization from continuing to operate or engage in religious services during a disaster emergency under this subchapter.” Recognizing the current public health crisis, the act notes that restrictions can be utilized as, “neutral health, safety, or occupancy requirements,” but the bill includes the provision that these regulations are “applicable to all organizations and businesses.” Protocols between religious gatherings and other businesses would be indistinguishable. For example,“a mass gathering limit wouldn’t apply to religious gatherings since it wouldn’t apply to a grocery story that is not, by definition, a mass gathering subject to the limit." In essence, this bill demands that religious gatherings and businesses operate under the same jurisdiction.

    The main controversy in this case is the battle between state health regulations and the first amendment. Specifically, this case examines the free exercise clause enabled through the first amendment. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These public safety restrictions impede an individuals' first amendment right to practice their religion. This act defends a religious group’s first amendment right by keeping houses of worship open even during the pandemic to preserve the free exercise of religion. In terms of “neutrality,” the government has been under siege for providing a disproportionate amount of regulations on religious spheres compared to other secular businesses. In a similar Supreme court case centered on regulations and first amendment rights based in California, Samuel Alito opines, “If Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California's churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.” This perfectly illustrates the lack of neutrality between secular businesses and places of worship. This act is built on the grounds of protecting the free exercise clause of the first amendment, eradicating religious discrimination, and establishing neutrality.

While the free exercise clause protected by the first amendment is a hallmark of religious liberty, the framers of the United States did not have the foresight to make exceptions to religious practices amidst a pandemic. It is important to note that while the coronavirus has shifted aspects of religious practices, these changes in my opinion are not discriminatory. In this controversy, it is important to distinguish between the government prohibiting large groups for public safety and the government prohibiting individuals from practicing their religion. Due to the scientific proof that social distance adherence and masks can reduce the spread  of coronavirus, these regulations have been implemented in all sectors of society, not just places of worship. Additionally, many places of worship have offered their services online, outside and in limited capacity settings. This is direct evidence that the government is not regulating religion, but regulating the spread of the disease. The stance that religious spheres are under heavier regulations that businesses should be highly contested. In a house of worship, individuals are in enclosed spaces, close together, singing and often touching each other. In other businesses, like a grocery store, individuals do their shopping in a timely manner with limited contact with others. While singing in church is a common practice, the coronavirus is transmitted through respiratory droplets which is very likely to be exchanged when church attendees are singing. A grocery story is necessary for a person’s survival, while a church is not. While neutrality is of essential importance, there are distinguishable features between these two realms that require different adherences. It is imperative to note that those in favor of this act are inflicting their own judgment about the pandemic. This decision lacks scientific reasoning and second guesses health experts studies which will only yield more positive cases. In the wake of another pandemic or national emergency, it is possible that other religious groups will use their first amendment right as a shield to evade certain protocols which will only inflict more harm on others. This potential snow ball effect could lead to something even more monstrous than the spread of a virus. In order to examine the validity of a law, a compelling state interest must be at the forefront of reasoning. The state had a “compelling interest” in mitigating the spread of the virus. The health and wellbeing of society is a prime example of a compelling state interest that should result in regulations.

Sources:

https://wordandway.org/2021/02/11/new-arkansas-law-exempts-churches-from-pandemic-restrictions/

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964822479/supreme-court-rules-against-california-ban-on-in-person-worship-amid-the-pandemi