A Good Friday service at a Roman Catholic church in London was halted by police on account that it violated UK COVID-19 rules which limit the size of church congregations. The attendees were threatened with fines and arrest if they refused to disperse. In video of the incident, one of the officers can be heard addressing the crowd stating: “Ladies and Gentlemen, this gathering is unfortunately unlawful under the coronavirus regulations we have currently. You are not allowed to meet inside with this many people under law. At this moment in time, you need to go home. Failure to comply with this direction to leave and go to your home address ultimately could lead to you being fined £200, or if you fail to give your details, to you being arrested.” It is easy to brush this incident aside, whether in agreement with the actions taken by the police or if you believe that this is something that happens in a country where the free exercise of religion is not protected by a governing constitution. However, this type of incident will likely not be an isolated one and unfortunately will likely not be only seen in the UK.
Throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been tension between U.S states attempting to
enforce COVID-19 restrictions and the freedom of every American to exercise
their religion. Back in February, the Supreme Court partially struck
down some of the most stringent restrictions targeting churches in California.
The court allowed churches to be exempt from the public health order which was
attempting to ban indoor services in areas with widespread COVID-19 infections,
but still allowed the ban on singing to go through (yes, you read that
correctly, the California government is banning singing). This has led scholars
and regular citizens alike to speculate on the interplay between religious freedom
and governmental powers to ensure the safety of the community during this
pandemic. However, I would like to posit that the government has no business putting
any kind of restrictions on the freedom guaranteed by the U.S Constitution
that Americans shall have the right to freely exercise their religion. Considering
people attended their Good Friday services and will be attending their Easter
services by their own decision, under their own agency, the government has no right
to remove this agency and thus stomp on the freedom of every American to freely
exercise their religion. The type of action seen in the video at the beginning
of this article is part of the very reason the crafters of the Constitution included
this freedom in the very first amendment. It is foundational to a free society.
If individuals, with free will and reason, make the decision that they are willing
to risk safety in favor of being able to practice their religion freely, then
that should be a decision they make; the government should not be making it for
them. Liberty comes with risk, but it is certainly preferable to the
alternative. Ask the members the Christ the King Polish Catholic Church in
Balham, south London.
Follow
my Twitter for weekly updates and alerts for new blog post.
The right to religion and freedom of worship permits every citizen to participate in their religious practices at their will. However, after Covid-19 was declared a global health pandemic, some rules were set to curb the virus's spread. The COVID-19 protocols included the closure of all gatherings in restaurants, workplaces, and places of worship. The set rules have raised questions by worshippers if the government had the right to disrupt their worship practices.
ReplyDeleteCOVID-19 rules regulations under the church section have clearly stated that the number of congregants in worship places should be limited (Sulkwoski & Ignatowski, 2020). The rule was set to ensure social distance is achieved and the spread of the diseases will be lower. In the case that a worship place fails to honor the guidelines, the church will be closed. Besides fines and threats of arrest is an option to the worshippers.
On the other hand, citizens affected by this rule have wondered if the government is honoring their worship rights. Considering this time of Eater holiday, many congregants had gathered in churches for their practices. A Roman Catholic Church had their Easter worship interrupted by the police accused that they disobeyed the set rules. They were forced to stop their worship and disperse to their homes failure which they get arrested.
Citizens and especially worshippers are questioning the government's right to control and stop their worship practices. Worshipers want to continue with their practices regardless of the pandemic. On the other hand, the government has the responsibility to stop the spread and ensure its citizens' safety. Congregants should understand that liberty comes with risks, and their need for worship could lead to contacting and spreading the diseases.
The government should address the conflict between them and worshippers. Worshippers should understand that the government cares for their safety and that of others. On the other hand, the government should ensure that the right and freedom to worship are considered. Better ways should be input to have both the disease at bay and worshippers still practice their freedoms.
Joseph this post was well thought out and explained a complex topic with ease and preciseness. I really enjoyed how you used the UK and it’s lack of protections as a way to strengthen and point out the current attack on our protected freedoms in the U.S. I was aware of what was going on in California but I have to be honest….. I was not aware of the ban on singing LOL. People more often than not look past the events going on right now and how they are truly attacking our constitutional freedoms and they are writing it off as a byproduct of Covid. But many ignore what precedent can mean for the future and if we give states the power to override constitutional freedoms once then it opens up the door for endless more violations that can use past precedent to justify their actions. I hope the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts continue to ensure constitutional freedoms are protected and no devastating precedents are set.
Delete