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.
5 comments:
I disagree with your conclusion, Jerra, on legal grounds. While I concede that indeed COVID is a new type of crisis we face, I believe not only that we have already seen the worst of it, but that the government never had the right to shut down in the first place. Our course focuses on the religious clauses of the First Amendment, but the same Amendment affirms that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble." I am more inclined toward an absolutist reading of this right, although I also favor freedom over security as a rule and thus could be biased.
I actually agree with Jerra's conclusion, mainly on the grounds that we are still in the middle of a global pandemic. Taking regulations and precautions to increase the public health and safety of citizens from contracting an extremely deadly and contagious virus should take precedent over people being able to engage in religious practices in person. In regards to what Governor Cuomo said, I do agree that this could show how he did target these communities based on them not following his regulations . I can also see the absolutist argument in regards to the First Amendment, but I do think that the "government's interest in maintaining security and safety is second to none" is what ultimately influences my opinion on this issue. Overall, I do agree with the notion that at this particular moment in time, public health precautions should be the number one priority of the government.
It is very apparent after reading Jerra’s post that she is well informed and clearly understands how the establishment clause works. I would like to shine some light on my differing opinion from Jerra’s opinion she states in her conclusion. I believe the Hasidic communities should celebrate their religion on this holiday. In general I believe that is inherently wrong that religious ceremonies and gatherings have been restricted by the government but huge gatherings and enormous protests have been allowed without a second thought. It seems to me like the government is deciding to limit the right to practice religion over the health and safety of the populous in allowing gatherings on the streets throughout the country (for a justified cause albeit) but not allowing the free practice of religion.
I absolutely agree with Jerra’s conclusion in this case. The bottom line for me is that we are in an unprecedented scenario in public policy over the past century, and in order for us to get through this crazy time, we have to make sacrifices. In my opinion government interest to restrict large gatherings of any kind overrides any religious concerns. The intention of the law is neutral, which is why I agree with your point about how the only difference between gatherings like parties and religious services is that one is labeled as religious and one is not.
You discussed the question of whether or not the state targeted religious groups with its policies. I have actually just read in the news that in Kentucky, this was very much the case. It seems the same, at least the way you describe it, in New York. Should this be the case, than it seems that I would have to say that the policies aren’t neutral in practice. You say that the government has a compelling interest, but given that the death rate is so low and many health experts are suggesting we should run the rout of herd immunity and open back up I don’t think these laws are necessary. The experts I’m referring to are those who have signed off on the Barrington Declaration.
Post a Comment