"Yes, Governors Can Legally Force Churches to Close Because of COVID-19"

[Skwim]

.

FYI

"Yesterday, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, issued a stay-at-home order that did not grant an exemption for churches. His sensible statement made it clear that churches were to be closed due to COVID-19:

[QUESTION:] Can I attend a religious service?

[ANSWER:] Large gatherings, including church services, will be canceled to slow the spread of COVID-19. Religious leaders are encouraged to continue livestreaming services while practicing social distancing with one another.
​

Yes! Exactly. When churches are allowed to remain open, they’re putting their members and their communities at risk. The virus can spread where people gather, and Jesus isn’t about to confer immunity upon anyone. Even if church members aren’t showing any symptoms, they could become carriers of the disease and endanger others.

Michigan and Ohio are among the states where the governors have not gone that far even if they’ve urged churches not to meet in person.

Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer rationalized this by citing “the separation of church and state” and claiming “that’s an area that we don’t have the ability to enforce and control.”

But none of that is true.

Kelsey Dallas, the national religion reporter for the Deseret News, has a helpful article explaining why governors have every right to shut down churches during this crisis.

In short, as long as the rules aren’t singling out religious gatherings specifically, governors can order them to shut down as part of broader regulations:

Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives, said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.

“So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,” he said.
​

Dallas notes that states already do this: There are fire codes, for example, that regulate how many people can be in a building. Those apply to churches just as they do a movie theater.
source

.​

 

[Revoltingest]

.

Dallas notes that states already do this: There are fire codes, for example, that regulate how many people can be in a building. Those apply to churches just as they do a movie theater..​

Regulating the number is very different from banning meeting (ie, setting
the number at zero). So while I see value in banning meetings because
of the public health crisis, I don't buy that argument.

 

[Skwim]

Regulating the number is very different from banning meeting (ie, setting
the number at zero). So while I see value in banning meetings because
of the public health crisis, I don't buy that argument.

I think the example was made to show that in some instances governing agencies can tell religions what they can and cannot do. That despite the First Amendment, churches aren't free to operate however they want. That's all.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the example was made to show that at times governing agencies can tell religions what they can and cannot do. That despite the First Amendment, churches aren't free to operate however they want. That's all.
.

No disagreement here.

 

[sun rise]

Neutral application of the law and executive orders is what I expect and approve of. And that's true whether it be enforcement of building codes or responding to a pandemic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is some more information about it https://www.deseret.com/indepth/202...ligious-freedom-synagogues-mosques-police-law

Legal experts said the answer is almost certainly yes, as long as regulations are reasonable and applied equally across all religious groups and other types of organizations.

Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives, said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.

“So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,” he said.

I agree with it from a humane perspective. From a religious tradition/theology perspective, I wonder how the Church will re-coordinated the Easter Vigil unless they will wait next year. How does that work? I'm not sure if anything like that has ever happened.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think the example was made to show that in some instances governing agencies can tell religions what they can and cannot do. That despite the First Amendment, churches aren't free to operate however they want. That's all.

I'm sure if the first amendment were acknowledged, people can still make their own decisions to go to Mass or not. Maybe it's more about the priests than the people.

 

[metis]

I'm sure if the first amendment were acknowledged, people can still make their own decisions to go to Mass or not. Maybe it's more about the priests than the people.

It's about both, and for very good reasons.

Even though our masses going through to Easter have been canceled, we can go to the church from 8-12 on Sunday and pray privately as long as we keep our distance. I did as such because I feel a need to pray for each of us as we go through this traumatic period.

Take care and stay safe.

 

[Regiomontanus]

.

FYI

"Yesterday, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, issued a stay-at-home order that did not grant an exemption for churches. His sensible statement made it clear that churches were to be closed due to COVID-19:

[QUESTION:] Can I attend a religious service?

[ANSWER:] Large gatherings, including church services, will be canceled to slow the spread of COVID-19. Religious leaders are encouraged to continue livestreaming services while practicing social distancing with one another.
​

Yes! Exactly. When churches are allowed to remain open, they’re putting their members and their communities at risk. The virus can spread where people gather, and Jesus isn’t about to confer immunity upon anyone. Even if church members aren’t showing any symptoms, they could become carriers of the disease and endanger others.

Michigan and Ohio are among the states where the governors have not gone that far even if they’ve urged churches not to meet in person.

Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer rationalized this by citing “the separation of church and state” and claiming “that’s an area that we don’t have the ability to enforce and control.”

But none of that is true.

Kelsey Dallas, the national religion reporter for the Deseret News, has a helpful article explaining why governors have every right to shut down churches during this crisis.

In short, as long as the rules aren’t singling out religious gatherings specifically, governors can order them to shut down as part of broader regulations:

Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives, said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.

“So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,” he said.
​

Dallas notes that states already do this: There are fire codes, for example, that regulate how many people can be in a building. Those apply to churches just as they do a movie theater.
source

.​

This is wrong. This is precisely the time to keep them open IMO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's about both, and for very good reasons.

Even though our masses going through to Easter have been canceled, we can go to the church from 8-12 on Sunday and pray privately as long as we keep our distance. I did as such because I feel a need to pray for each of us as we go through this traumatic period.

Take care and stay safe.

True. Same here. The doors are still open to pray. Once in a full moon I'll go only when I'm nearby. Peaceful.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sure if the first amendment were acknowledged, people can still make their own decisions to go to Mass or not. Maybe it's more about the priests than the people.

But most governing bodies, whether federal or state, have not left it up to the discretion of the parishioners but to the mandate they place on the church itself. In other words, legally, they may say a church can not open itself for masses.

This is wrong. This is precisely the time to keep them open IMO.

I disagree.

​

" Faced with new restrictions on in-person gatherings, most houses of worship in the U.S. have temporarily closed their doors.

But some churches, synagogues and mosques have rebelled against requested — or, in some cases, required — changes, and sometimes faced police raids as a result.

Amid a public health crisis like COVID-19, can the government really force a house of worship to close?

Legal experts said the answer is almost certainly yes, as long as regulations are reasonable and applied equally across all religious groups and other types of organizations."
source
​

Furthermore

"The ability to gather as people of faith is our first freedom. But as with other freedoms now cabined [confine within narrow bounds.] in the name of public safety, religious freedom must take a backseat, at least for now.

During outbreaks or other public health emergencies, states have broad powers. They may place restrictions on movement, quarantine persons, mandate vaccinations against infectious agents, and limit public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease.

The federal government may burden religious practice when it enacts a neutral and generally applicable regulation, order, or law. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear when it upheld, in Employment Division v. Smith, the denial of unemployment benefits for a Native American who ingested peyote as a part of his religious sacrament. The loss of benefits burdened him uniquely, but to push aside the law for the religious belief would make religious believers a law unto themselves, Justice Scalia observed.

After Smith, Congress imposed on the federal government the duty to show more when burdening religion with federal laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) allows a person whose religion is burdened to ask a court to test whether that burden is necessary. The government must show a compelling interest for its action that the government cannot satisfy with less restrictive means.

In this pandemic, the laws regulating Americans most directly are state law, not federal. However, RFRA’s demanding test does not apply to state action, like the actions taken in California to lock down the Bay Area and the impending shelter-in-place order in New York.

Like Congress, many states have also demanded more proof from the state before burdening religious belief unnecessarily. Thirty-one states have state constitutional protections or state RFRAs policing religious burdens that flow from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. But this just means that judges must interrogate the need for restricting the movement of Americans during a pandemic. Given the extraordinary risk of transmission of the coronavirus, together with COVID-19’s lethality, finding a compelling interest in limiting gatherings to ten people or less or to making citizens shelter in place seems fairly straightforward.
source

.


​

 

[Regiomontanus]

But most governing bodies, whether federal or state, have not left it up to the discretion of the parishioners but to the mandate they place on the church itself. In other words, legally, they may say a church can not open itself for masses.



I disagree.

" Faced with new restrictions on in-person gatherings, most houses of worship in the U.S. have temporarily closed their doors.

But some churches, synagogues and mosques have rebelled against requested — or, in some cases, required — changes, and sometimes faced police raids as a result.

Amid a public health crisis like COVID-19, can the government really force a house of worship to close?

Legal experts said the answer is almost certainly yes, as long as regulations are reasonable and applied equally across all religious groups and other types of organizations."
source
​

Furthermore

"The ability to gather as people of faith is our first freedom. But as with other freedoms now cabined [confine within narrow bounds.] in the name of public safety, religious freedom must take a backseat, at least for now.

During outbreaks or other public health emergencies, states have broad powers. They may place restrictions on movement, quarantine persons, mandate vaccinations against infectious agents, and limit public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease.

The federal government may burden religious practice when it enacts a neutral and generally applicable regulation, order, or law. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear when it upheld, in Employment Division v. Smith, the denial of unemployment benefits for a Native American who ingested peyote as a part of his religious sacrament. The loss of benefits burdened him uniquely, but to push aside the law for the religious belief would make religious believers a law unto themselves, Justice Scalia observed.

After Smith, Congress imposed on the federal government the duty to show more when burdening religion with federal laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) allows a person whose religion is burdened to ask a court to test whether that burden is necessary. The government must show a compelling interest for its action that the government cannot satisfy with less restrictive means.

In this pandemic, the laws regulating Americans most directly are state law, not federal. However, RFRA’s demanding test does not apply to state action, like the actions taken in California to lock down the Bay Area and the impending shelter-in-place order in New York.

Like Congress, many states have also demanded more proof from the state before burdening religious belief unnecessarily. Thirty-one states have state constitutional protections or state RFRAs policing religious burdens that flow from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. But this just means that judges must interrogate the need for restricting the movement of Americans during a pandemic. Given the extraordinary risk of transmission of the coronavirus, together with COVID-19’s lethality, finding a compelling interest in limiting gatherings to ten people or less or to making citizens shelter in place seems fairly straightforward.
source

.


​

I was not speaking as to the legality of this. I am just saying that I don't think they should be closed. And measures could be taken to limit contact, for example have extra services so as to able to keep people from being right next to one another.

People seem to think that these measures are somehow going to contain the virus. No. We are just slowing down the rate at which people get infected. Eventually almost everyone will all be exposed to the virus.

 

[Skwim]

People seem to think that these measures are somehow going to contain the virus. No. We are just slowing down the rate at which people get infected. Eventually almost everyone will all be exposed to the virus.

But even if it amounts to no more than slowing the rate of infection it does buy time to find better preventative measures and perhaps even a cure.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are just slowing down the rate at which people get infected.

That is EXACTLY what we are trying to do. That's why it is important to distance ourselves from one another.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But most governing bodies, whether federal or state, have not left it up to the discretion of the parishioners but to the mandate they place on the church itself. In other words, legally, they may say a church can not open itself for masses.



I disagree.

​

View attachment 38212​

" Faced with new restrictions on in-person gatherings, most houses of worship in the U.S. have temporarily closed their doors.

But some churches, synagogues and mosques have rebelled against requested — or, in some cases, required — changes, and sometimes faced police raids as a result.

Amid a public health crisis like COVID-19, can the government really force a house of worship to close?

Legal experts said the answer is almost certainly yes, as long as regulations are reasonable and applied equally across all religious groups and other types of organizations."
source
​

Furthermore

"The ability to gather as people of faith is our first freedom. But as with other freedoms now cabined [confine within narrow bounds.] in the name of public safety, religious freedom must take a backseat, at least for now.

During outbreaks or other public health emergencies, states have broad powers. They may place restrictions on movement, quarantine persons, mandate vaccinations against infectious agents, and limit public gatherings to prevent the spread of disease.

The federal government may burden religious practice when it enacts a neutral and generally applicable regulation, order, or law. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear when it upheld, in Employment Division v. Smith, the denial of unemployment benefits for a Native American who ingested peyote as a part of his religious sacrament. The loss of benefits burdened him uniquely, but to push aside the law for the religious belief would make religious believers a law unto themselves, Justice Scalia observed.

After Smith, Congress imposed on the federal government the duty to show more when burdening religion with federal laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) allows a person whose religion is burdened to ask a court to test whether that burden is necessary. The government must show a compelling interest for its action that the government cannot satisfy with less restrictive means.

In this pandemic, the laws regulating Americans most directly are state law, not federal. However, RFRA’s demanding test does not apply to state action, like the actions taken in California to lock down the Bay Area and the impending shelter-in-place order in New York.

Like Congress, many states have also demanded more proof from the state before burdening religious belief unnecessarily. Thirty-one states have state constitutional protections or state RFRAs policing religious burdens that flow from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. But this just means that judges must interrogate the need for restricting the movement of Americans during a pandemic. Given the extraordinary risk of transmission of the coronavirus, together with COVID-19’s lethality, finding a compelling interest in limiting gatherings to ten people or less or to making citizens shelter in place seems fairly straightforward.
source

.


​

I can see that. Have mass in 10s and have the rest watch from TV. Shugs.

 

[Cooky]

That is EXACTLY what we are trying to do. That's why it is important to distance ourselves from one another.

Personally, I'm trying to never catch it.

 

[dfnj]

.

FYI

"Yesterday, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, issued a stay-at-home order that did not grant an exemption for churches. His sensible statement made it clear that churches were to be closed due to COVID-19:

[QUESTION:] Can I attend a religious service?

[ANSWER:] Large gatherings, including church services, will be canceled to slow the spread of COVID-19. Religious leaders are encouraged to continue livestreaming services while practicing social distancing with one another.
​

Yes! Exactly. When churches are allowed to remain open, they’re putting their members and their communities at risk. The virus can spread where people gather, and Jesus isn’t about to confer immunity upon anyone. Even if church members aren’t showing any symptoms, they could become carriers of the disease and endanger others.

Michigan and Ohio are among the states where the governors have not gone that far even if they’ve urged churches not to meet in person.

Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer rationalized this by citing “the separation of church and state” and claiming “that’s an area that we don’t have the ability to enforce and control.”

But none of that is true.

Kelsey Dallas, the national religion reporter for the Deseret News, has a helpful article explaining why governors have every right to shut down churches during this crisis.

In short, as long as the rules aren’t singling out religious gatherings specifically, governors can order them to shut down as part of broader regulations:

Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives, said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.

“So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,” he said.
​

Dallas notes that states already do this: There are fire codes, for example, that regulate how many people can be in a building. Those apply to churches just as they do a movie theater.
source

.​

I thought we had separation of state and church?

 

[Skwim]

I thought we had separation of state and church?

And you thought right, but it's not absolute. The present situation being a good example.

.

.