Resist The Authoritarian Response To The Coronavirus

[TJ in Oregon]

The State of Oregon today banned gatherings of more than 25 people, including churches. This is probably extremely unconstitutional. But considering the Courts are mostly shut down there's not a whole lot we could do about it. The Archbishop was not happy, but decided to comply with the state order and suspended the public celebration of Mass. It would seem imprudent to invoke a call for civil disobedience under the circumstances and, if undertaken, very well could get people killed.

I'm frustrated with the whole thing too. It seems especially severe that the state can shut down activities explicitly protected in the constitution while allowing commerce to largely continue. But here we are waiting for the doom. I wonder how people of centuries past felt waiting out plagues. I bet many of them still went to church. But alas that's not a priority these days.

As somber as is the above, it seems reckless, even indecent, to consider going out to a bar or restaurant with things in this state. If we have a fund to make up whatever lost revenue local businesses face from this, I would gladly put in my couple hundred dollars or whatever I would have spent during the quarantines. I doubt something like that will be organized though. What's harder is the isolation of living at home, working at home, church banned, all social functions cancelled etc etc. I hope we can all grow in virtue from this experience and become less selfish because of not having our way for a while. This is a good time to pray for our country and all those affected by this, and confess and do penance for our sins as best as we are able without the sacraments.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nobody is seriously talking about a 18-month lockdown. That would obviously be unenforceable as well as being, yes, more economically ruinous than our society can reasonably afford.

The virus will probably stay with us for 18 months or longer, but what we're trying to do here is get through the peak of the infection, and do so gradually enough that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. There are many estimates of how long that will take, but to my knowledge it shouldn't be more than a couple months.

However, for it to actually work, we need to go on lockdown right now. This means people need to quit being babies or LARPing as brave rebels, suck it up, and stay home for a few months. It also means the state should provide immediate economic relief to everyone who needs it. If we're actually serious enough to do this thing, we'll be able to go back to our daily lives soon and minimize deaths as much as possible. If not, then whatever happens next is something we'll have brought onto ourselves.

“Stay home for a few months”.

Really, really privileged quote there Anthony.  People CANNOT stay home for a few months.  They will die,  in far far greater numbers than you can ever imagine.  We will have mass starvation and civil unrest.  You may be able to stay home for a few months, and good for you.  By all means do so if you feel it necessary.

And btw we have a bill of rights, including freedom of religion. Good luck trying to stop people from attending services for months on end.  It won’t happen.  I will be back in the Church soon, as will many others.

Even in Wuhan, grocery stores were open, so please stop playing this game.
As for your church, I don’t think god wants you to willingly infect people and violate common sense measures, but you are free to believe otherwise.  However, I will tell you this, you aren’t special, you are a part of a larger problem and the rules apply to you, even if you don’t like it. Your self comfort isn’t more important than thousands of lives. People who willingly resist social distancing ought to be fined and recorded for later (because arrests right now are problematic)

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

In some cases "voluntarily" after the government tells them that have to (or have to have <10 people which is functionally the same thing). There's absolutely no way that's constitutional. But there won't be a serious challenge, least not from the larger religions. There may be some small evangelical group out there who does disobey, but even there the odds aren't great they are arrested.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh I should say, at risk of being misinterpeted, that we absolutely should have a ban on social gatherings at a minimum. Watching Italy from this side of the pond does not look like a fun place to be in a week. It's not very fun at home either, but we kinda have to do this. Three weeks ago things looked a lot different, but it's almost undeniable now the situation is far more dire than at least I had presumed. The way I see it, the better we are at following the smaller rules like social distancing the less likely we are to face a true lockdown. And I really don't want that.

[TJ in Oregon]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

[TJ in Oregon]

It is definitely, definitely not going to be constitutional to forcibly close a church.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of churches have already gone to virtual services voluntarily.

It is constitutional to make content-neutral time/place/manner regulations of first amendment activity.

You are right it would not be constitutional to simply ban church services.

However, it would be entirely constitutional to regulate the sizes of meetings, for example to ban meetings of greater than 50 people (or 20 or 5 people, or perhaps even of 2 people), as is currently occurring in many jurisdictions. This would include church services, but would not apply specifically to church services. It also does not in any way prevent churches from holding online meetings, and there is no particular intent to prevent religious practice or to single out/target religion for some sort of suppression.

Mind you, it wouldn't necessarily be constitutional to ban meetings with a certain # of people if there were no legitimate government purpose/interest for doing so. But in this case, there is a legitimate public interest - namely public health - for doing so.

On the other hand, suppose that the government wanted to ban all online meetings (including online church services). In this case, I don't think there would even be a rational basis for doing so on the basis of public health, so this would not be constitutional.

That's still clearly unconstitutional even if not specifically targeted towards religious groups because it still effectively bans the free practice of religion. You can't make a law that completely bans a constitutional right point blank, even if it is neutrally targeted. As for the online argument, there are many religions, mine included, whose worship includes physical acts not possible over the internet.

It's not unconstitutional to limit religious services to 9 people or less during a national emergency for the sake of public health.

Every church in America can have 9 people in it still.

You and I know both know that is not a plausible solution that allows the free practice of religion.