Ohio Prohibits the Closure of Churches and Other Religious Buildings for Public Health Reasons

By Robin G. Jordan

I question the wisdom of enacting a law that prohibits public officials from closing churches, synagogues, mosques, and other buildings where the adherents of a religion meet for worship and instruction in a public health emergency as the State of Ohio has done. Enacting and repealing a law is a slow process. There may come time when due a particular set of circumstances such a building may need to be temporarily closed to contain the spread of COVID-19 or some other highly infectious disease.

With the passage of this law the State of Ohio is effectively tying the hands of public officials in such cases and thereby enabling the spread of dangerous, life-threatening diseases. The passage of this law shows a lack of foresight on the part of the legislature and the governor of the state. The residents of the State of Ohio, neighboring states, and other regions of the country may come to regret the adoption of this ill-conceived law. What one state does affects other states in a public health emergency.

Such a law has a high likelihood of contributing to the spread of highly infectious diseases in a community. For example, a church building could become infested with bubonic plague carrying rodents. The church occupying the building could refuse to do anything about the rodents, arguing that it is relying upon God’s protection from the bubonic plague, an argument similar to the one used by a number of churches that have been defying the state and county public health measures intended to reduce the COVID-19 transmission risks in their locality. Ohio’s law would prevent state and local public health officials from temporarily closing the building while exterminating the rodents. It would also prevent state and local public health officials from closing down a church building if an outbreak of e. coli or salmonella was traced to a day care center or nursery operated by a church in its building and the church refused to take steps to improve sanitary conditions.

Rather than a blanket prohibition of public officials from closing buildings used for religious purposes, the State of Ohio could have adopted a law which laid out specific requirements that public officials would have to meet before they could temporarily ban the use of a building for religious purposes for public health reasons. These requirements could have included a process for determining the need for such a ban, for reviewing its continued need, and extending the ban if and when it is warranted.

Ohio’s new law allows religious organization to meet in unsafe conditions that not only endanger the members of the religious organization but also the public at large. It sets a bad precedent. Having excluded one class of organizations from public health laws and regulations, other classes of organizations will seek similar exclusions. Such exclusions will not only impact Ohio but neighboring states and other regions. They will undermine the efforts of other states to contain the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus.