(Religious Freedom) Now a crime in VA to attend services?

[Shadow Wolf]

people have common sense

Exceot they don't. Or this wouldn't be an issue. They would do it on their own. But many just as not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exceot they don't. Or this wouldn't be an issue. They would do it on their own. But many just as not.

A lot of people would as well. If I were part of "them" I'd definitely wouldn't go to service if I knew the seriousness of it. I'm sure I (one with common sense) wouldn't be the only one?

I know our church would have gone online anyway. We're more about each other's safety rather first. We had to meet online cause of the church closings but I go to a UU church. I'm sure we're not the only ones with this line of thinking.

I try to give the benefit of the doubt. If I wouldn't do it, I can't say I'm the only one who won't.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

As a Christian, we don't have to meet in large numbers. We can meet in small numbers at one another's homes. This is what I believe the Christians should do, if they want to continue to meet.

We can obey the law and still meet. But we don't have to meet in the church building. I do believe every church should stay open however and still allow no more than 10 in at a time for whatever reason. The lead Pastor still remains available for any to meet with.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches will have different ways of viewing these things. Whether the Roman Church can give authority to certain ones in groups of 10 or less, to perform the duties of the priest, I don't know. The Protestant Churches can as they usually see various gifts of the Holy Ghost distributed throughout all Christians and in any group size you will have the gifts present.

I'm sure the internet and meeting through live streaming is helpful, but it really isn't the same thing. We don't discard it, but it doesn't take the place of real public meeting. Why? Because there is a supernatural element involved in the Christian meeting. Of course the secular and pagan and atheist world could care less of this, but this plays a role with the Christian.

If the laws get more strict, then the Christian may be forced to break the law if he wants to meet. Every believer must make that decision. It is certain that there is coming a future clash between the believers and secular government. (Rev. 13:15-18)

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Heyo]

I think people should be able to go into a church with more than 10 people - but they should be prevented from coming out again before it can be made sure non are infected.

 

[McBell]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

You clearly do not understand what the Establishment Clause actually is.

ABC Supply is a retail store, not a church.

you provided no source for your California claim,

your empty claim of racism is actually more sad that useful

The deadline will keep being pushed back as long as people are not following the social distancing rules that have been put in place.
So it is in fact, people like you who are to blame for it.

Everyone needs to exercise precautions.
That so many are not is the reason for the fines and imprisonments.

You do have the right to assemble.
UNTIL said assembling threatens the health and well being of others.
Again, you reveal ignorance of how the laws actually work.

 

[McBell]

View attachment 38229 View attachment 38230 View attachment 38231 View attachment 38232 View attachment 38233

if it was singling out churches you might have a point.
But since it is not singling out churches and applies to all assemblies of ten or more, your point is moot.

 

[ChristineM]

What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?

Simple, adhere to the quarantine regulations and help save peoples lives.

We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.

Its called preventing the spread of the virus, its not about personal pleasure

 

[crossfire]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

A State of Emergency has been declared both by the Governor of Virginia and by the President of the United States regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions or impose policies that it would not normally be permitted to undertake. There are provisions in the US Constitution for this.

Now, if the Governor of Virginia does not remove the restriction on gatherings (religious or not) after the State of Emergency is over, then that would be in violation of the Constitution. However, while under a State of Emergency, such restrictions are not unconstitutional if they are part of the executive plan for dealing with the emergency.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

All Church gatherings have been stopped in the UK. Even weddings and baptisms. Our medical specialists can show that be everybody just staying at home we can reduce the speed that this virus will reach its peak, and in that way our medical services will be able to handle the pandemic at every stage. It also gives us a better chance to find a vaccine, and to reach summertime which might make a difference to the virus.

If some household are restaurants then they really ought to close their restaurant services.

The USA does not seem to be 'together' in its determination to cope with this pandemic, which is very sad.

Yes, that's a good PRETEXT. But actually, that doesn't really deal with the fact that this is people's lives you're upending in the case of restaurants (what, you think rent ends because there's a quarantine? Don't kid yourself! They probably get tossed out on the street if their restaurant/house doesn't earn enough. You don't have to tell me what it's like to be rootless, to be a car person, and that's until someone decides your car ought to be repossessed too or something), and stomping all over people's rights.

In the US, many Episcopalians and Methodists have gone the Skype (you ppl from the UK are suckers if you're entirely giving up services) or Facebook route just to have a sense of community. The problem with this as I've learned from attending these Baptist churches is that even if they are tech savvy, there's a sense of ecstatic element that is somewhat lacking (basically, they're loud and energetic, and the idea of being forced into a house doesn't have the same feel to it). Yeah, Church of England is okay with quietly shutting down for who knows how long. But this leaves a gap in the community and it is wrong to look at it as a shame that everyone can't be on board with this. It's a shame that everyone in the UK feels like it's easy to throw away their religion. Germany kinda did that (mainly because of a church tax) and never really was the same afterwards.

The person directly above me, the problem is that Trump has set one date for the end of such things, and this governor has set another entirely (hint: it's longer). He also plans to regard this as a yearly event. In other words, here's what's really happening. There's a disease. There's some measure of lockdown in most states. There's a leader in what would be a red state, if you went by district numbers. If you go by population of one or two counties, however, this governor wins and it's a "blue" state. 90% of the districts have people who don't have any sort of Coronavirus at all, and more importantly 90% of the counties didn't vote for this guy. He knows it, and it gives him an inferiority complex. So after his reputation is ruined by a blackface scandal and even the liberals are ashamed of him, he's set out to use this crisis to take a giant crap on the state, on the pretext that this is gonna somehow make things safer.

I would like to know how one impeaches a governor. Because he has really destroyed the local economies and left people who were doing okay on the edge of real poverty. All for his reputation, from the size of it.

 

[HonestJoe]

This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights!

Are you saying that religious freedom should be totally unconditional, even if it puts other people at risk of death?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Giving the church sayso doesn't relieve people from common sense. I'm sure the pope would have discontinued mass even if the government didn't intervene.

But isn't this all about the fact that there are religious types who still congregated even though the order said not to? What makes you think The Pope's edicts in this matter would be listened to any more closely? Wouldn't there still be religious people who would break The Pope's "law" and still congregate because "religious freedom?"

"Religious types" as you put it, are as wide and varied as secular types. In their beliefs, in their customs, in what they consider "essential" to their respective religions. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to cater to any religious designs in opposition to the law of the land. As has even been done in the past, you can then have people make up a religion, give themselves some religious "requirements," and then subvert the law because "religious freedom." Think "scientology." It's ridiculous, and we as a species need to pull our heads out of our butts with respect to religion. People should individually be allowed to practice whatever the heck they want to, as long as it involves and affects no one else who is not a willing party. Beyond that, I don't give a flying crap about "religious freedom" as pertains to breaks from common law. There should be no such allowances made. None.

 

[PruePhillip]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

Stop being paranoid. These rules apply to all groups.
As it is, in some countries the spread of the disease has been
attributed to religious gatherings (Israel, Indonesia, Egypt etc)

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, that's a good PRETEXT. But actually, that doesn't really deal with the fact that this is people's lives you're upending in the case of restaurants (what, you think rent ends because there's a quarantine?

Me upending? No..... In my country WE are working together, And all small business are Council Rates free this year, and our government is releasing funds to support small businesses in need because of this lockdown.
The alternative is too horrid to consider.

Don't kid yourself! They probably get tossed out on the street if their restaurant/house doesn't earn enough. You don't have to tell me what it's like to be rootless, to be a car person, and that's until someone decides your car ought to be repossessed too or something), and stomping all over people's rights.

The Covid-19 doesn't care about people's rights.
Where we live we are committed to reducing and slowing this virus so that our NHS can weather the coming patient storm.

So far your country has 55,000 known cases and 1000 known deaths, so you have an idea what could happen across 320 millkion people when this sickness peaks in about 4-7 weeks (is my guess).

I think you need to go with this lockdown, and I hope that your country supports you all like our country is supporting us.

In the US, many Episcopalians and Methodists have gone the Skype (you ppl from the UK are suckers if you're entirely giving up services) or Facebook route just to have a sense of community. The problem with this as I've learned from attending these Baptist churches is that even if they are tech savvy, there's a sense of ecstatic element that is somewhat lacking (basically, they're loud and energetic, and the idea of being forced into a house doesn't have the same feel to it).

I'm a Deist but the Church cade meeting on Fridays is cancelled, as are all services here. Nobody should be within close proximity of anybody else unless they live tiogetrher.

Yeah, Church of England is okay with quietly shutting down for who knows how long. But this leaves a gap in the community and it is wrong to look at it as a shame that everyone can't be on board with this. It's a shame that everyone in the UK feels like it's easy to throw away their religion. Germany kinda did that (mainly because of a church tax) and never really was the same afterwards.

If you continue to have large congregations then there may swell be a big gap in your community, and the sickness will have spread out further still.

The person directly above me, the problem is that Trump has set one date for the end of such things, and this governor has set another entirely (hint: it's longer). He also plans to regard this as a yearly event. In other words, here's what's really happening. There's a disease. There's some measure of lockdown in most states. There's a leader in what would be a red state, if you went by district numbers. If you go by population of one or two counties, however, this governor wins and it's a "blue" state. 90% of the districts have people who don't have any sort of Coronavirus at all, and more importantly 90% of the counties didn't vote for this guy. He knows it, and it gives him an inferiority complex. So after his reputation is ruined by a blackface scandal and even the liberals are ashamed of him, he's set out to use this crisis to take a giant crap on the state, on the pretext that this is gonna somehow make things safer.

You've got a vote in your country. Best to use it wisely.
Your President reckons that this will be over by Easter. That cannot help the people to work together, imo.

I would like to know how one impeaches a governor. Because he has really destroyed the local economies and left people who were doing okay on the edge of real poverty. All for his reputation, from the size of it.

Wait a few weeks, and then do your finger pointing, eh?

 

[BilliardsBall]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

The Constitution guarantees the right to a peaceable assembly. Separation of church and state ALSO means the state cannot compel the church's practices.

The question is where the line is drawn regarding "the general welfare" (health).

 

[Jainarayan]

Why would church gatherings be different to any other gathering? It's common sense, no ones freedom is being taken away.

In the US it technically is a violation of the First Amendment’s clause about the right to peaceable assembly, not freedom of religion. No state has the right to override the US Constitution. I see a number of court cases about this. Gov. Murphy of N.J. has trampled all over the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. Whether there’s some loopholes he’s banking on remains to be seen. I hope he gets slapped down by the N.J. state and/or US Supreme Courts.

 

[pearl]

In the Catholic churches it is up to the bishops. The Archbishop of Boston closed the churches long before the Governor required not more than 25 in a gathering. Our bishop did not until the Governor's order.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We have a little thing called separation of church and state

I don't think that you understand what that phrase means. It does not mean that the church is above or exempted from the state and its laws. The church's rights, which are at the people's pleasure, are subject to government regulation.

If that weren't the case, churches would be free to hang witches and sacrifice animals (and human beings).

And right now, the government is telling the church that it cannot meet in large groups.

let's walk all over those rights!

Your rights are temporarily restricted. The welfare of the state trumps the preferences of the church. Maybe you thought your religious freedom was the most important issue for America, and all other needs must take a back seat to your desire to assemble and spread contagion. Pretty selfish in a time when all need to make sacrifices to get through this as safely as possible.

I notice you weren't interested in the rights of people that need to stay open for business to put food on the table, but have also been instructed by government to make sacrifices for the common good.

 

[Windwalker]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

Two words negate your whole, selfish complaint. National Emergency.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But isn't this all about the fact that there are religious types who still congregated even though the order said not to? What makes you think The Pope's edicts in this matter would be listened to any more closely? Wouldn't there still be religious people who would break The Pope's "law" and still congregate because "religious freedom?"

Well, since we are all adults, there are probably some who congregate, but now "not in the pope's name." All churches have ceased with Mass. You can't do Mass without a priest and Eucharist. So, the only congregation I can think they may do is prayer.

I put it in my shoes. If I were catholic, why would anyone assume because I am catholic I could "have the chance" to break the pope's law. Can I really think for myself? (If you were catholic, can you?)

"Religious types" as you put it, are as wide and varied as secular types. In their beliefs, in their customs, in what they consider "essential" to their respective religions. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to cater to any religious designs in opposition to the law of the land.

As has even been done in the past, you can then have people make up a religion, give themselves some religious "requirements," and then subvert the law because "religious freedom." Think "scientology." It's ridiculous, and we as a species need to pull our heads out of our butts with respect to religion. People should individually be allowed to practice whatever the heck they want to, as long as it involves and affects no one else who is not a willing party. Beyond that, I don't give a flying crap about "religious freedom" as pertains to breaks from common law. There should be no such allowances made. None.

So far I read, our US government quoted all religious shut down. The decision could only be made when it's applied to all religions. Just catholicism has a big influence but it isn't more important than another. The point still stands. Even if the government gave religions the chance to make decisions on behalf of their congregation, I'm sure most of them if not all would have still shut down. The problem sounds more about the people.

The last part, in the US religious can practice whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights. For example, doctors by law can't intervene in religious choice to let a person die due to their religious beliefs. Remember. There is no generalization here. (i.e. unless my best friend is the only gay, divorced, self-identifying catholic who loves the lord before life itself)

I actually care for religious freedom. It gives me a chance to worship wherever I choose without the government dictating where I should go, believe, where, and why. Religious freedom helped us be an independent and democratic country.

Maybe some religions fall under what you're saying but from a person point of view, we are all adults. Being under a religion doesn't change that.

 

[metis]

In many states, gathering has been restricted to under 50 ppl because of that virus. However, two news articles have made it to the surface.
The first is that in California, they are apparently turning off power and running water to people who don't close their businesses. What about people whose business is their home? You know, people who run a restaurant and live upstairs?
The second is more relevant to religious freedom. You see, in Virginia, that number got reduced down to about 10 people. Many other states also did this, so fair enough. But many other states like Michigan and Texas admitted that this doesn't apply to religious establishments. This ought to be correct. We have a little thing called separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. This ought to be unconstitutional even if it did prevent disease. Nahhhh, let's walk all over those rights! In Virginia, if 11 people show up to church, all of them are felons and can expect to be jailed or fined $2500!

Virginia governor makes attending church a criminal offense



He says this, but Northam has repeatedly pushed back deadlines, and I imagine he'd like it if churches closed indefinitely. As it stands, many will due to lack of funds. Anyone thinking atheism isn't a religion only has to look at how no such restrictions are made to the ABC store (which pays into his salary, and thus is an "essential business") but seems hellbent to get rid of churches. If that doesn't look like a rival religion, I dunno what does. Also, turns out it's racist. The ones most likely staying open are black Baptist churches (Episcopal and Methodists have all closed). Blackface Northam strikes again!

Yes, maybe some people do need to exercise precaution. But we cannot be allowed to overturn the Bill of Rights (in US) or other civil rights in other countries. Once you lose such freedoms, there is precedent for it, and you have trouble getting them back. We do have the right to assemble. And we do have right to religion. Probably there is an expectation that people will do it using social media, but not everyone is tech savvy.

In the mean time, I'll leave you this video. It's very disturbing, as it shows the unsettling event of the major church handing down edicts to backwoods churches. Will monastic groups be forced to split apart when they have no contact with the outside world and are unlikely to get sick?

No one is stopping us in the Catholic Church from going into church and praying, so the issue of religious freedom really isn't the issue. What is the issue is being sensibly safe so as to help one's self and others from getting sick and possibly dying.