Some judges think he restrictions are constitutional:
Others don’t:
I don’t really see a solid argument that if nondenominational assemblies of a certain number of people are prohibited because of a major public health risk, and that is not unconstitutional; that denominational assemblies of the same number should not be prohibited even given the same major public health risk.
As a matter of science and fact, we have seen many examples of coronavirus outbreaks that were due to large religious gatherings.
As a matter of judgment, I have a hard time concluding that religious services override the safety of literally the entire community, so long as the restrictions persist only to the minimum extent that public health demands.
You were talking about drive-thru services, not drive-thru confessions(which would seem to involve only the Catholic Church), and not drive-in services. Please tell me how a drive-thru service would work?
By the way, how does a drive-in confession work? Since it is supposed to be a private event, does every member of the family go through separately and, if so, how do those not yet able to legally drive get their turn to confess?
Ah, I see now. It was hard to follow that chain of arguments.
If there were some other rationale than public health… I suppose so, as long as it equally applies to other gatherings without regard to the content/purpose of the gathering. Like, if there’s a major flood or earthquake and it isn’t safe to go out, something like that. But generally I’m thinking there must be lives on the line to have such limitations at all.
Some religions practice animal sacrifice. Some religions hold that children should receive corporal punishment. When these religions are enacted in the US, they violate laws and may be prosecuted.
That’s definitely above my pay grade, and I’m not sure but that it might be above the Pope’s, too. Doctrine about the Sacraments is usually phrased in terms of “should”, without mention of “or else what”, and with an extra helping of “God is mysterious”.
There aren’t spiritual consequence for any one specific day. There’s a requirement to receive communion at least once a year, during the Easter season unless there is good reason to do so at another time of year. ( in the US this year, Easter season is from March 1 through June 7) Assuming that a particular diocese hasn’t dispensed Catholics from this obligation (some have) , the pandemic would certainly constitute good reason to fulfill the duty at another time of year. And those who believe there will be spiritual consequences will surely find a way before next Easter.
Per the Catholic Catechism: “God has bound Salvation in the Sacraments, but he is not bound Himself by them.”
So if you have to skip Communion to avoid killing the entire Altar Guild, God can still deliver the same amount of Grace.
Germ theory didn’t really start to become generally accepted knowledge until 100 years after the Constitution was written, so claiming that the founders made decisions about rights like “freedom of assembly” with the knowledge that it would lead to greater death during times of disease is clearly wrong.
I’m quite aware, and never meant to imply that he claimed to be a US attorney. You should know who I referred to, as I’ve asked him directly a few times, with no response yet.
IMHO a gangfest ban would pass muster if tailored for a SPECIFIC event or situation. Generally banning any sect’s holy day would not. Leave them Wednesdayfarians alone! But a state prohibition of nude protests on Superbowl Sunday might be ruled legit.
You didn’t mention public health so that’s a different question, and I already cited court support of limited action. Here’s that quote again from the Cornell Law site:
Faith does not justify spreading contagion. Public health hazards should be isolated. The faithful can reach their heavenly reward by themselves, not taking me along.
But these are more than unsafe, because that implies that you’re just in danger when you’re in the group. These people are likely bringing things home and infecting others. I can definitely see how actually causing harm to people outside your group could be considered non-peaceful.
Furthermore, if they are forcing people to be less than six feet away from them, that has an even bigger argument for being non-peaceful. Same with not wearing masks. If they’re causing harm while part of the group, surely that isn’t peaceful.
Peaceful = quiet, not using physical violence, etc.
Safe = not posing a danger to others.
These are totally different. You can totally be standing somewhere, minding your own business, in quiet, and yet be silently spreading deadly germs/viruses to people a few feet away from you.