Posted on 11/15/2020 8:36:39 PM PST by lightman
Nov. 12 (UPI) -- As the COVID-19 pandemic surges again in the United States, churches are fighting state and local orders that cap attendance at services at lower numbers than allowed at nonreligious places and events, such as stores and protests.
Governors and other officials who issue the orders say the restrictions are necessary to minimize the spread of coronavirus. But religious institutions across the United States have filed numerous court challenges since the spring arguing that the different capacity limits and social distancing requirements for them are unconstitutional.
U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., has introduced a bill that would prohibit state and local governments from setting lower caps in the case of people who are exercising a First Amendment right. The Equal Opportunity First Amendment Act -- which would apply to orders issued during a national or state emergency -- also would allow those who allege they were harmed by unequal enforcement of a public gathering rule to sue in federal court.
"In many instances, Americans are confused and horrified as their local government allows large gatherings of people exercising their First Amendment right to protest but bans church services," Hern said in a news release. "In many communities, businesses and shopping malls are open but houses of worship still have a 10-person limit. These inconsistent ordinances are disproportionately harming communities of faith. If the First Amendment protects protesters, it protects worshipers, as well." RELATED Pfizer agrees to supply as many as 300M COVID-19 vaccine doses in EU
Hern is focusing on freedom of religion, but his bill also would ban discriminatory capacity caps for people exercising the First Amendment's other freedoms -- speech, press, assembly and petition -- according to GovTrack.us, a legislative tracking tool that is part of Civic Impulse LLC, which promotes civic participation and government transparency.
"Presumably, it also would ban stricter capacity in, for example, newsrooms," the website says.
The legislation, introduced July 30, has 24 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, all Republicans. The bill is awaiting a vote in the Judiciary Committee. GovTrack.us estimates the odds of the legislation passing in the Democratic-majority House are low. RELATED U.S. adds another record toll of COVID-19 cases, most deaths in 3 months
Church discrimination
The United States is setting daily records for new cases of COVID-19 and more than 230,000 have died, according to Johns Hopkins University. With the holidays approaching, health officials worry those numbers will keep climbing.
Officials in many jurisdictions say that in the absence of a vaccine or a cure, emergency measures are needed to protect their communities from a virus that spreads easily and can be transmitted by a person who is asymptomatic. RELATED Gallup: Fewer willing to isolate and distance, but more worry about COVID-19
Emergency measures have included stay-at-home orders; bans on indoor worship, including home Bible studies; face mask mandates; physical distancing requirements; and restrictions on the size of gatherings that sometimes have different capacity limits for religious and secular activities. Worries about the spread of COVID-19 through respiratory droplets has also led to bans on singing at services in some places.
In California, opponents of orders by Gov. Gavin Newsom that banned indoor religious services in 18 counties and set capacity limits in others say they are discriminatory. Under those orders, churches can feed and shelter and offer nonreligious counseling to an unlimited number of people, but cannot hold religious gatherings in the same building.
Paul Jonna, a Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., attorney and special counsel to the Thomas More Society, said the restrictions violate the right to the free exercise of religion. Protests are encouraged, but churches are subject to "draconian" rules, he said.
Many governors "just don't see the importance of churches" and don't take the First Amendment into account when deciding whether to place caps on religious gatherings, Jonna said.
In addition, Jonna -- an attorney at LiMandri and Jonna representing churches in three California cases on behalf of the society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm -- contended many of the reasons given for limiting religious gatherings are not supported by scientific evidence.
"Going to church is not more dangerous than going to the grocery store," he said. "It's clear to our experts that there is no science justifying treating churches differently."
He added: "If this current pandemic serves as a basis to shut down churches, we're setting a very dangerous precedent."
Trying to halt spread
Lawyers for California say the state's capacity limit is based on evidence that the risk of infection increases rapidly with larger groups and in settings in which people gather in close proximity for extended periods.
In a written declaration, Dr. James Watt, an epidemiologist with the California Department of Public Health, said most scientists believe that group singing, particularly in an enclosed space, carries a high risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus through the emission of infected droplets. Even normal speech can spread the virus, he said.
There have been multiple reports around the country of "sizable to large gatherings, such as religious services, choir practices, funerals and parties" that resulted in the significant spread of COVID-19, he said.
The declaration was submitted by the state in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the LiMandri & Jonna attorneys on behalf of South Bay United Pentecostal Church, challenging California's four-stage reopening plan, which limited attendance at services. South Bay Pentecostal, a San Diego-area religious community, also asked for an injunction permitting it to resume in-person services pending resolution of the suit without having to adhere to a cap of 25 percent of building capacity or 100 people, whichever is lower.
After a trial judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against issuing the injunction.
Chief Justice John Roberts concurred with the majority, writing that the state had similar or more severe restrictions for comparable secular gatherings, such as spectator sports, and treated more leniently dissimilar activities, "such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats."
Conflicting rulings
Mat Staver, an Orlando, Fla., attorney who is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which litigates religious liberty cases, told UPI he supports the concept of the Equal Opportunity First Amendment Act.
He argues that churches have been subjected to unconstitutional disparate treatment and noted the U.S. Supreme Court said in a 1947 case that states and the federal government cannot "force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will."
Federal judges are divided on whether prohibiting churches from holding services during the pandemic violates that standard, Staver said. As of mid-October, rulings on whether the different limits for churches violate the First Amendment have been issued in at least 73 trial court cases and by four courts of appeals, with dozens more cases not yet decided, he said.
The cases include a suit filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Pasadena, Calif.-based Harvest Rock Church challenging the state restrictions and asking for a preliminary injunction barring their enforcement pending resolution of the matter. After a federal judge denied the request, the case went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also declined to issue an injunction.
In a 2-1 ruling on Oct. 1, the 9th Circuit said the evidence does not support the argument that the orders give comparable secular activity more favorable treatment than religious activity.
"The orders apply the same restrictions to worship services as they do to other indoor congregate events, such as lectures and movie theaters," the majority opinion said.
In a dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted the state insists that completely prohibiting indoor religious worship services in 18 California counties is necessary to fight the pandemic.
"Yet, in these same counties, the state still allows people to go indoors to: spend a day shopping in the mall, have their hair styled, get a manicure or pedicure, attend college classes, produce a television show or movie, participate in professional sports, wash their clothes at a laundromat and even work in a meatpacking plant," the judge wrote.
Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries, which filed a suit alleging Illinois Gov. Jay Pritzker's executive order capping in-person worship services at 10 people is unconstitutional, also asked for an injunction.
After a trial judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request, the churches appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the proceedings, Pritzker dropped the challenged restrictions, leading the high court to also decline to issue an injunction.
Because the governor refused to say he would not reimpose the restrictions, the churches filed a petition last month asking the Supreme Court to review their case and rule on whether the restrictions are unconstitutional.
Other churches have been more successful in their appeals. The 6th Circuit granted two injunctions to Maryville Baptist Church in Bullitt County, Ky., allowing it to hold parking lot and in-person services. And the 5th Circuit granted a request by First Pentecostal Church of Holly Springs, Miss., to host indoor services if it complied with the social-distancing requirements. (Several days before the ruling, the church burned to the ground in what investigators believe was an arson fire.)
Staver hopes the Illinois churches' petition, along with the differing rulings from the appeals courts, leads to an opinion that settles the issue of the restrictions.
"This case and the conflicts among the courts provide an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to step in and stop this abuse of the First Amendment," he said.
Kyrie eleison
Ping.
It was sad how most churches just gave in without even a fight.
At the very least, churches in CA could have been more proactive in holding services outside instead of running to zoom right away.
We have excellent weather for it.
While I’m not personally keen on large indoor gatherings, I’m not sure how the government overrides the right to assembly in 1A because of Covid.
More than sad:
Tragic and downright EVIL...like the false hireling “shepherds” condemned in Ezekiel 34 and John 10.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
the local/county state governments have zero rights in telling Churches when they can and cannot meet or how many can meet same goes with the federal government too.
They have no legal authority in mask mandates or anything tyrannical connected with the FUD phony China virus.
If Churches themselves, want to implement their very own rules restrictions regulations mandates they most certainly can but not the long arm of the Government not now not never.
American Christians, must stand against this tyranny religious/ freedom liberty the God given rights, to freely worship praise our God is the most sacred right in the whole entire nation it’s what separates us from the Communist marxist socialist statist nations and the Satanist pagan heathen.
Sometimes churches have become their own worse enemy, imposing regulations that exceed those of the vaunted “local authorities”.
Here is a redacted email I recently received about an event in a Pennsylvania church:
“There is no life without risk; the question is how to responsibly manage the risks that we identify. In the currently contentious situation, let us be kind to one another, whatever level of risk one feels is present in the nation these days. Since we come from so many directions and have so many different observations and opinions, we will use precautions so that we can be together. It is the policy of ****** Church to allow 50% of the seating capacity of any room to be used at this time. Our gathering will not be anywhere near that maximum. There is a balcony in the nave, if any one wishes to be seated at a greater distance from others during worship. We are required by the congregation to wear a face mask covering your nose and mouth at all times in the building (unless one is subject to a medical condition that does not allow wearing a mask). Of course, masks may be removed when eating and drinking in the Social Hall. Please follow all sanitizing instructions on the doors of the restrooms should you need to use those facilities.”
Thanks, but no thanks!
Trump didn’t help matters with the national declaration federal/state emergency order plus encouraging closure while giving a false hope that Churches would all be open by easter Sunday.
And while since done little to nothing in stopping the tyranny other than a vague EO directive that’s not being fully enforced despite his main duty of primary oath of office in upholding the rule law.
But ultimately your 100000% right Churches/ places of worship shouldn’t have closed then and they shouldn’t close now.
You make a great point.
Been praying for a few Maccabees to rise up through the church. To my dismay they folded like the lukewarm church of Laodecia should. It’s prophetic and biblical.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks and the government and church demand he wears a mask and get His temperature taken.
+ 1
Post of the day!
We had outside services until we had a Sunday that was over 105. We moved inside. We didnât need our older members dying in the heat. Weâve been meeting inside ever since.
Our church is the only place I can go and feel normal. We fear God more than Newsome or this stupid virus.
I would think that in particular, orders that limit the number of people inside a church to anything besides a percentage of normal capacity, say, 25%, or whatever is needed to accommodate 6 foot “distancing”, could easily be thrown out when large retail stores are allowed to let in (typically) a given % of capacity.
The idea that a church that can easily accommodate 1000 worshippers should be limited to 25, or, like Pritzker’s ridiculous initial limit, 10 people, in a church no matter how large, is absurd. It’s not even worthy of an orangutan.
...and the free exercise, thereof...
Free, as in unencumbered, open.
Pretty straight forward.
Unless, it’s a tax.
Oh, wait just one minute Chief Roberts, churches don’t pay taxes.
100%
Did we cower in our closets when the Governor banned all our MAGA t-shirts and hats?
Oh, wait, the government can’t establish a dress-code.
That’s unConstitutional.
So, why do we put on a mask when we leave the house?
Do you fear the virus or do you fear the Orders?
Just
Don’t
Comply
Christmas is coming they are gearing up
No sympathy.
These churches were silent in the face if this spreading fascism by the left .
This is what happens when you pander to BLM and Democrats.
Sad isn’t the word. Pathetic works better.
I called mine out along with most other American churches.
I reminded them in a six page letter that they answer to God, not the governor.
The governor answers to the people and the Constitution. I listed about ten point sin the state and federal constitutions that the governor broke.
I lamented that we nave no Ten Boom, Wurmbrandt, or Bonhoffer’s left. The American church is more content to just cave in to tyranny than to stand up to it.
One of my church leaders talked with me about it and I realized then their minds were closed.
I asked what the end game was and he said it was the vaccine.
I asked when they were going to put me out of the church for not getting vaccinated.
8 months ago, I loved that church. Now, I’ve lost so much respect for the leadership it isn’t funny. I’m heavily involved at the senior level of a national parachurch type organization. I’d rather not leave the church but they may give me no choice.
Exactly
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.