Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many a church or house of worship has temporarily closed. Some have argued that this is a violation of 1st Amendment rights, more specifically Freedom of Religion.
In 1963 the Supreme Court heard a case, Sherbert v. Verner, that involved Freedom of Religion, and helped create a test to analyze government action to see if it violates that right, called the Sherbert Test.
This test consists of four parts. First the court has to determine whether a person has a claim involving a serious religious belief, and then whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief. The government would then need to prove that it is acting to further a “compelling state interest”, and then that it has pursued that interest in the least restrictive way.
Let’s take a look at the first part, taking Christianity for this example. In the Christian religion, it is believed that fellowship and meeting with some regularity is important. We can see that this is backed up by two verses from the Christian Bible:
- Matthew 18:20 (NIV): For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.
- Acts 2:42 (NIV): They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
It is not too much of a stretch to say being able to meet in the church building is a substantial burden on staying connected with the community. Let’s look at the next two parts of the Sherbert Test.
Preventing the spread of COVID-19, even if the death rate is in the single digits, is a “compelling state interest” as it involves preserving the safety and lives of the population. This virus has devastating effects on the bodies of those who are exposed.
We need to ask ourselves, are orders that close churches the least restrictive option to pursue this interest?
It is cheaper than ever to stream content over the Internet. YouTube and Facebook both provide platforms to livestream videos. Anyone who wants to livestream could even do so from their phone if they didn’t have a suitable computer or camera. A free online platform, online.church, provides a platform tailored to the needs of churches.
There are people who just aren’t great with technology and might need a different solution. There is a way for churches to hold services in person without violating orders. These are drive-in services, where everyone stays in their car and tunes into a station on their radio.
This equipment is more affordable than one might think, and while FM broadcasting regulations are very restrictive, AM broadcasting is quite doable, although I doubt anyone would crack down on these broadcasts.
For those who worry about churches not receiving donations, a significant amount of people donate online or have an automatic withdrawal set up with their bank, so churches probably won’t go broke either.
In conclusion, these orders are legal as long as they apply to everyone equally. As soon as a group receives an exemption, we might have to reassess the situation.
Click here for sources.
The Mill Review 