On Thursday the US Supreme Court requested that a lower court reconsider the constitutionality of California’s restrictions on religious gatherings at places of worship in light of its November ruling against New York’s restrictions on such gatherings.
The US Supreme Court’s November ruling was a flawed ruling which will regrettably contribute to the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus. It is based upon defective reasoning, a form of logical fallacy known as false equivalency.
False equivalency maintains that two things which belong to different categories, such as the degree of risk of transmission of the COVID-19 coronavirus, belong to the same category due to superficial similarities. It is like saying oranges and apples are fruit, therefore oranges are apples and apples oranges. Both are round and both grow on trees. Upon closer examination, however, it is quite evident that they are not the same. Bite into an unpeeled Red Delicious apple and an unpeeled Saville orange and you will immediately recognize the difference.
In a number of cases involving restrictions upon places of worship the attorneys representing the religious organizations seeking a court ruling lifting these restriction or overturning them or relief from a court order enforcing the restrictions have claimed a false equivalence between religious gatherings at places of worship and things like street protests and demonstrations. Among the differences between religious gatherings at places of worship and street protests and demonstrations is that religious gatherings are held indoors in what may be a poorly ventilated space, the attendees sit or stand in place, and religious gatherings are recurring--held weekly or at more frequent intervals. On the other hand, street protests and demonstrations are held outdoors, the participants are in the open air and on the move, and street protests and demonstrations are usually not ongoing. Those that are ongoing generally involve a much smaller number of participants.
In their November ruling the majority of US Supreme Court justices who ruled against New York’s religious gathering restrictions did not safeguard the freedom of religion but gave religious organizations license to engage in practices that threaten the health, safety, and well-being of the public. They set a dangerous precedent. They ruled that it was acceptable for religious organizations not only to recklessly endanger their own members but also the public at large. This ruling, I suspect, will have unforeseen consequences that churches and other religious organizations and the general public will come to regret.
While they have alleged that states and counties in imposing religious gathering restrictions are seeking to suppress religion, churches and other religious organizations making this allegation have failed to present evidence of the truth of their allegation. An allegation is simply an allegation until it is proven. While these organizations may perceive an anti-religion bias in the actions of a state or county, perceptions can be inaccurate. An unsubstantiated allegation is not sufficient grounds to limit the authority of states and counties in the exercise of their responsibility to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the public.
The right to practice our religion also carries with it responsibilities as do all of our rights recognized by the US Constitution. They are not permission to do whatever we please without regard to the consequences. In demanding unfettered liberty for ourselves, we are also setting the stage for others to make similar demands—like no restrictions on abortions, no restrictions on euthanasia. We may argue that there is no equivalence between religious freedom, abortion, and euthanasia, but the use of false equivalency is not confined to conservative Christians.
Often the underlying motive behind objections to restrictions on worship services is not a desire to do God’s will but to do our own. For Christians Jesus ties love of God to love of others. If love of others is missing from our actions, we are not showing love of God. The two are inseparable.
In the Old Testament God rebukes the people of Israel not for their observance of their religious duties but for their lack of mercy toward others. In the Gospels Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for the same reason. They scrupulously observed the smallest detail of the Law but they failed to show any compassion toward others. Churches that insist upon conducting worship services and other gatherings in manner that recklessly endangers the health, safety, and well-being of not only their attendees but the public at large are doing the same thing. They are failing to show mercy and compassion toward others.
Our religious freedom is something that we should greatly cherish. At the same time, we should not treat it as permission to disregard the health, safety, and well-being of others. Such a view is not consistent with our own Lord’s teaching. If Jesus is truly Lord of our lives, we will not ignore his teaching to be merciful and compassionate in our dealings with others.
In a number of cases involving restrictions upon places of worship the attorneys representing the religious organizations seeking a court ruling lifting these restriction or overturning them or relief from a court order enforcing the restrictions have claimed a false equivalence between religious gatherings at places of worship and things like street protests and demonstrations. Among the differences between religious gatherings at places of worship and street protests and demonstrations is that religious gatherings are held indoors in what may be a poorly ventilated space, the attendees sit or stand in place, and religious gatherings are recurring--held weekly or at more frequent intervals. On the other hand, street protests and demonstrations are held outdoors, the participants are in the open air and on the move, and street protests and demonstrations are usually not ongoing. Those that are ongoing generally involve a much smaller number of participants.
In their November ruling the majority of US Supreme Court justices who ruled against New York’s religious gathering restrictions did not safeguard the freedom of religion but gave religious organizations license to engage in practices that threaten the health, safety, and well-being of the public. They set a dangerous precedent. They ruled that it was acceptable for religious organizations not only to recklessly endanger their own members but also the public at large. This ruling, I suspect, will have unforeseen consequences that churches and other religious organizations and the general public will come to regret.
While they have alleged that states and counties in imposing religious gathering restrictions are seeking to suppress religion, churches and other religious organizations making this allegation have failed to present evidence of the truth of their allegation. An allegation is simply an allegation until it is proven. While these organizations may perceive an anti-religion bias in the actions of a state or county, perceptions can be inaccurate. An unsubstantiated allegation is not sufficient grounds to limit the authority of states and counties in the exercise of their responsibility to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the public.
The right to practice our religion also carries with it responsibilities as do all of our rights recognized by the US Constitution. They are not permission to do whatever we please without regard to the consequences. In demanding unfettered liberty for ourselves, we are also setting the stage for others to make similar demands—like no restrictions on abortions, no restrictions on euthanasia. We may argue that there is no equivalence between religious freedom, abortion, and euthanasia, but the use of false equivalency is not confined to conservative Christians.
Often the underlying motive behind objections to restrictions on worship services is not a desire to do God’s will but to do our own. For Christians Jesus ties love of God to love of others. If love of others is missing from our actions, we are not showing love of God. The two are inseparable.
In the Old Testament God rebukes the people of Israel not for their observance of their religious duties but for their lack of mercy toward others. In the Gospels Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for the same reason. They scrupulously observed the smallest detail of the Law but they failed to show any compassion toward others. Churches that insist upon conducting worship services and other gatherings in manner that recklessly endangers the health, safety, and well-being of not only their attendees but the public at large are doing the same thing. They are failing to show mercy and compassion toward others.
Our religious freedom is something that we should greatly cherish. At the same time, we should not treat it as permission to disregard the health, safety, and well-being of others. Such a view is not consistent with our own Lord’s teaching. If Jesus is truly Lord of our lives, we will not ignore his teaching to be merciful and compassionate in our dealings with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment