4 ms·

I live in a religious county in Iowa, and while all the churches have stopped meeting, some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation i

I live in a religious county in Iowa, and while all the churches have stopped meeting, some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation is a violation of religious freedom. Nobody is violating it though.

techsupporter 7y ago
> some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation is a violation of religious freedom. There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that applies here. Yes, if the government--at any level--was forbidding people from meeting for religious reasons for an indefinite period simply "just because," that would be a violation of our freedoms and something to be gravely concerned about. Restrictions on religion not based on the religious belief itself have been allowed since the founding of our republic. You can't have a religion where a "sincerely-held belief" is that one parishioner in attendance gets murdered. Or that smashing in people's front doors is a sign of holiness. Religious buildings, while exempt from property tax, must still comply with building, electrical, plumbing, and life safety codes. In this situation, given that it is content-neutral--all gatherings of size are prohibited--and time-limited and in the furtherance of a major social interest (inhibiting the spread of a brand new virus), I think it withstands Constitutional scrutiny.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  I think what doesn't make sense to me is the fact that assembly is required for democracy to work, and the people have to accept their loss of assembly with an accelerated pace of facts before there's any time to digest. The people must simply trust that forfeiting a necessary aspect of democratic health will be correct in hindsight.
  - robotron 7y ago
    Unfortunately, we have the rest of the world to look at as an example of it being necessary.
nradov 7y ago
There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. However judges have generally decided that civil liberties can be restricted to a limited extent if the government establishes a compelling public interest and there's no other solutions are possible.
- beart 7y ago
  > There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
  - nradov 7y ago
    I think you (and others who downvoted me) missed the point of my comment. It is absolutely legal for the government to restrict religious freedom in certain limited ways when there is a compelling reason to do so.
    - beart 7y ago
      I did not miss that and I did not down-vote you. I have not been a church goer since I was a child and have not spent much time thinking about religious freedom so I was trying to understand when you say it is obviously a violation.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Forbidding people to gather together as part of religious observance is definitely a restriction on their religious freedom. In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere. In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does. However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.
Brendinooo 7y ago
This was a concern in our church. This concern was ameliorated by a) pointing out that any restrictions have been applied without any discrimination in that regard, and b) with the full assurances of the state of Pennsylvania that the work of the church is vital and should continue in this crisis, even if in-person services are not currently a part of that mix. (There was a conference call and everything!)
etxm 7y ago
Sorry, but fuck “religious freedom” when it puts others at risk.
LeoTinnitus 7y ago
If they have a problem with it, they should start a new church to protect their freedoms!

techsupporter 7y ago

> some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation is a violation of religious freedom. There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that applies here. Yes, if the government--at any level--was forbidding people from meeting for religious reasons for an indefinite period simply "just because," that would be a violation of our freedoms and something to be gravely concerned about. Restrictions on religion not based on the religious belief itself have been allowed since the founding of our republic. You can't have a religion where a "sincerely-held belief" is that one parishioner in attendance gets murdered. Or that smashing in people's front doors is a sign of holiness. Religious buildings, while exempt from property tax, must still comply with building, electrical, plumbing, and life safety codes. In this situation, given that it is content-neutral--all gatherings of size are prohibited--and time-limited and in the furtherance of a major social interest (inhibiting the spread of a brand new virus), I think it withstands Constitutional scrutiny.

threatofrain 7y ago
I think what doesn't make sense to me is the fact that assembly is required for democracy to work, and the people have to accept their loss of assembly with an accelerated pace of facts before there's any time to digest. The people must simply trust that forfeiting a necessary aspect of democratic health will be correct in hindsight.
- robotron 7y ago
  Unfortunately, we have the rest of the world to look at as an example of it being necessary.

nradov 7y ago

There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. However judges have generally decided that civil liberties can be restricted to a limited extent if the government establishes a compelling public interest and there's no other solutions are possible.

beart 7y ago
> There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
- nradov 7y ago
  I think you (and others who downvoted me) missed the point of my comment. It is absolutely legal for the government to restrict religious freedom in certain limited ways when there is a compelling reason to do so.
  - beart 7y ago
    I did not miss that and I did not down-vote you. I have not been a church goer since I was a child and have not spent much time thinking about religious freedom so I was trying to understand when you say it is obviously a violation.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Forbidding people to gather together as part of religious observance is definitely a restriction on their religious freedom. In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere. In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does. However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.

Brendinooo 7y ago

This was a concern in our church. This concern was ameliorated by a) pointing out that any restrictions have been applied without any discrimination in that regard, and b) with the full assurances of the state of Pennsylvania that the work of the church is vital and should continue in this crisis, even if in-person services are not currently a part of that mix. (There was a conference call and everything!)

etxm 7y ago

Sorry, but fuck “religious freedom” when it puts others at risk.

LeoTinnitus 7y ago

If they have a problem with it, they should start a new church to protect their freedoms!