Tuesday, February 16, 2021

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.

7 comments:

  1. I completely agree with the notion that the state does have the right to regulate the gatherings of religious groups during the pandemic as I also agree that the necessity of something like a church to gather is not comparable to things like grocery stores. Allowing churches to hold gatherings would have negative effects that go beyond the people simply attending these gatherings. Thus, regulating gatherings ensures that the right to safety for others is not violated. And lastly, I too agree that without this regulation a slippery slope could ensue and people could be doing things harmful for the general population under the shield of religious exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the statement that in-person church gatherings should be regulated by the state in light of the global pandemic, as well as with the statement that these regulations are not restricting freedom to exercise religion at all, but instead attempting to restrict the spread of a deadly virus. As mentioned, many places of worship have developed alternative ways to practice one’s faith. While I stand by the argument that grocery shopping is essential for survival and places of worship should not be held to the same standard, I think it’s important to recognize that many may argue that religion and faith actually are, in fact, necessary for survival. However, exercising religion in-person and with others is not a requirement. Individuals are still able to practice their religion however they want to and are not being restricted by the government from doing so (personally or virtually with others). Therefore, the restrictions of in-person church gatherings do not violate the freedom to exercise religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that protecting the health and wellbeing of our society is a time where regulations should be put in place. There are plenty of alternatives to still practice faith, such as with online services. The argument that if people can go to grocery stores they should be able to go to church is very flawed. Getting groceries during a pandemic is necessary for survival, while going to church is not. Putting these regulations in place is not completely stopping them from practicing their faith, it is just telling them that they have to find a different way for the time being. This is why this does not violate the first amendment right of the freedom to exercise religion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that it makes sense to place certain restrictions on social gatherings including religious gatherings. Some religious spaces can hold hundreds of people which can create super-spreader events. This pandemic is temporary and it is not an infringement of people's 1st amendment rights to temporarily hold off on religious gatherings in order to combat a global pandemic. The unfairness that is presented in the government's decision to allow filmings of tv shows and award shows while closing religious spaces speaks to a larger issue of what the government deems worthy enough to keep open. It is not necessarily an issue of violating the first amendment right, but rather an issue of the government allowing more lucrative industries to continue as normal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anna covers an essential distinction in this case that individuals were not prohibited from gathering but rather restricted to specific modes of gathering to prevent the spread of the virus. Much of the framer’s discussions of religious liberty are about individual autonomy in order to freely exercise their religion. The pandemic distorts this situation as the act of gathering can and will put others at risk, most importantly individuals who are not part of the act of gathering to worship itself. Although I do not believe we are to judge if one’s religious life is necessary to their survival, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a situation in which individuals must adapt for the common welfare. These individuals are not giving up their right to worship, nor is it being taken away, it must be altered to protect all individuals which are implemented through facially neutral social distancing regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this makes complete sense and agree with the exactly what the author wrote. I do not think these religious group's arguments about how their ability to worship is being negatively affected is a valid argument. I do not at all think these people's first amendment rights are being violated. There are other ways to gather and worship rather than meeting in a confined space. The fact that these religious groups want to compare their gatherings to the public going to the store to get food is outrageous. The government allowed large stores to remain open because they were deemed a necessity. Am in person religious gathering is not considered necessary. Personally I know my church holds up to 1500 people, so having us all be allowed to meet in person would be considered a super-spreader event.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that the state does have the authority to regulate how many people are at a religious gathering because they are trying to keep people safe and not allow the virus to spreads. I think it is important that the author put that people aren't restricted to gather, but restricted from gathering in certain areas to prevent the virus. I feel like the virus has created a situation that everyone in the world has adapt to, overcoming the adversity that is present. People don't have to give up their rights to worship they just have to learn to worship in a different setting. This is why I think that the peoples first Amendment rights were not violated. I know that some people are very very very religious and they believe they it is essential to go to church and gather to practice there faith, I just don't see that it is.

    ReplyDelete