Earlier this year, the Supreme Court, in 5-4 decisions, told the churches and synagogues of California and Nevada that they have to follow pandemic-related closing orders of the state. Yesterday, the Supremes, in a 5-4 ruling, told the Diocese of Brooklyn and two synagogues associated with Agudath Israel of America that they can ignore pandemic closing orders in New York.
There were differences In practice but not in principle between California and New York. But the real difference was on the court. The late Ruth Bader Ginsberg was one of the five in the pro-life-preservation cases. Justice Amy Cony Barrett was the fifth vote in he pro-religious freedom to get people killed case.
Obviously, you know how I would have voted.
The court provided an injunction that prevents New York’s rules from applying while the case is given a full hearing in the lower court. But in providing he injunction, the five majority justices showed where they will stand, writing that the diocese and synagogues “have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest.”
I, for one, don’t know how they showed the public interest wouldn’t be harmed if the public has any interest in keeping Covid-19 from spreading. But this was just a per curiam ruling — no one claims authorship — for one phase of the Catholic and Jewish legal case against public safety flying under the rubric of religious liberty.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote dissents. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. With all that writing, you would think they were deciding the case rather than simply deciding whether to put the law on ice until the case is heard.
Justice Gorsuch’s stem-winding conclusion gives you a feel for the level of jurisprudence involved:
“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”
Yeah. You are in and out of a liquor store in minutes, but you are in church for an hour. There is no world, except the world of talk radio, in which the experiences are comparable.
I agree that liquor stores and bike shops are not a comparable situation. A more parallel example would be bars and movie theaters. They need to compare apples to apples if they don't want the appearance of bias.
ReplyDeleteBias?!? Surely you jest.
DeleteThat was said a bit tongue in cheek!
DeleteMichigan churches are exempt from emergency orders. I wouldn't have a problem with that if churches were responsible.
ReplyDeleteBut most churches here are extensions of the Republican Party, and in their world, Trump won, covid is the sniffles, and masks are for sheeples. FAITH OVER FEAR!
One of the Men's Club members at the local parish called Raber last week to tell him that one of their group had got the covid after their monthly meeting November 8. The guy didn't bother telling anyone until it was too late for them to quarantine. Why? Because he didn't really feel that sick.
Contact tracing efforts have fallen apart since the last surge, so notification is up to patients.
I assume we are in the clear at this point, no thanks to our brothers in Christ.
And what pressing biz did the men need to meet about for a couple hours? Improved signage and considering bids for gutter cleaning at the rectory. Topics to risk your life for, certainly!
The fact that people of God are suing in court for the right to hold their weekly super-spreader events pretty much tells you all you need to know about the level of American dedication to the common good: nil to none.
But given the millions of idiots cramming themselves into airports and planes for the holidays, spread via churches may be the least of our worries.
I'm really glad that Covid isn't like Ebola. But in a way it was easier to get people to observe precautions during the Ebola scare. The differences; nobody gets a light or asymptomatic case of ebola. The incubation period is short, and it's about 90% fatal. You're not going to roll the dice and hope you're one of the lucky ones under those circumstances. The problem with Covid is that it doesn't seem real to people unless they get it themselves, and if they don't get it too hard then it's still just like a flu bug to them. We are a nation of gamblers, just look at all the people who buy lottery or powerball tickets. The epidemic is just reverse powerball, they take the gamble that they won't be a "winner" of a stay in the hospital or the funeral home.
DeleteAnd I would add the diagnosis of compulsive self-centeredness to that of compulsive gambling.
DeleteI'm guessing sociologists have studied mass behaviors during pandemics.
DeleteThe parallels between covid and the plague of 1665 are uncanny. There's denial, panic and clutching at quack cures, and then lethargy as people see cases go out of control. There's a sense of doom that infection is inevitable, and people quit taking precautions. I sense that a lot of people want one last holiday together just in case it's their last. Christmas will be even worse than Thanksgiving.
Once cases start to go down, people regain hope and social distancing compliance goes up again.
I think Americans have the idea that they're invincible.
Way too many Americans have drunk the Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulterer Kool-Aid about Covid. It's no worse than the flu. The numbers are exaggerated to make Der Fuhrer look bad. Ad nauseum.
DeleteLet those who want to start to die in houses of worship go right ahead. There is no cure for stupid.
The problem is how many family members, grocery store workers, drug store clerks, co-workers, and nurses they'll inject or kill along the way.
Delete*infect
DeleteThe real problem in all this is money. All the decision makers about openings are concerned about getting money: the governors are concerned about taxes, and the churches about collections. They are motivated to place the burden upon people to decide for themselves about the risks.
ReplyDeleteIn the spring when things were shut down, the people who had already begun to shut down agreed and we would have been on our way to licking the virus (or at least holding it at bay at very low levels) if we had invested in testing and contract tracing. However once everyone (including governors and church leaders) saw the economic impact, Trump and the Republican governors led the way to place money as more important than health and lives.
When cases spiked again in mid-summer (probably due to people being inside with air conditioning) we were able to control things and the rate was coming down during August. However there was no leadership to go the extra mile, focus upon testing and contract tracing, and so the virus got out of control. Now they are telling us the contact tracing is useless because the virus is so wide spread.
Instead the government (and churches) leading in shutting things down all the onus is being placed upon people doing it for themselves. We are headed for a catastrophe since essentially our medical system will disappear for all practice purposes.
The hospitals are filling up with Covid patients which means everyone else who is in need of hospital care may not have it, or be too afraid to seek it.
We are running out of overworked hospital people, the only way to expand hospital care is to close down outpatient care and take all the doctors and nurses to staff expanded hospital setting.
If you have ever been to an emergency room for real emergency care, e.g. when my heart goes into extreme tachycardia, you realize you do not want to be there because all the care is focused on the patients that are most in need, and you hope you are not one of them.
I have been cleaning out bookshelves, and have found books that aren't my own! (Surprise, surprise) Some belonged to a former RC parish, so I added a few donations to those and have been riding around with this box of books for a month now. I needed to go in the direction of the church today, and finally remembered to swing by. Mass had just gotten out. I was disturbed a bit by one little group outdoors - a young couple, with two kids (all four masked), and a baby in arms. They were conversing with an unmasked gray-haired man who stood 2 ' away, and at one point he reached out and touched the baby's face. Apparently the parents were either not worried about the close contact (but they still had their masks and their kids' masks on), or didn't know how to politely say "Back off, Buster". Touching the baby's face isn't acceptable in any circumstances anyway.
ReplyDeleteOne thought occurred, that maybe it was a friend or relative who had recovered from Covid and tested negative. I know that's not a guarantee at this point, but indications are that recurrences are fairly uncommon.
Delete