Love, Law, Liberty
3 Essentials During the Coronavirus Crisis
Blog by Donald P. Shoemaker
I suggest that our country’s response to the coronavirus be looked at as a stool with three legs: Love, Law and Liberty. If balanced and embraced by most, we will overcome. I gave three points in my last newsletter, which I’ve now made the three legs of the stool:
LOVE: Out of love for our neighbor, the second great commandment Jesus taught, we do what is best for the greater good of society (Mark 12:31).
LAW: Out of respect for authorities (Titus 3:1) and the medical knowledge they gather to the best of their ability, we agree to the prohibitions and adjustments set forth by our local, state and federal governments, so long as they are fair and equitable.
LIBERTY: Recognizing our constitutional rights, we keep a wary eye on any edicts from government that might limit these rights. We insist on a quick end to limitations of our rights once the crisis has passed.
Unfortunately, the “Liberty” leg is coming up short. Here is a letter in my local newspaper which, I fear, reflects commonly-held thinking:
Yes, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. It also guarantees freedom of assembly, but that right has been temporarily suspended for the common good. [emphasis mine]
Temporarily suspended? By what authority? In World War II the rights of 120,000 Japanese-Americans were “temporarily suspended.” Where in the Constitution does it say that the rights guaranteed therein are subject to suspension? Of course the rights are not absolute. Freedom of religion does not give one the right to sacrifice children or deny minors lifesaving treatments. Freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater, to use Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ analogy. **
Agree or disagree with policies, we should all acknowledge that the “free exercise of religion” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” are being infringed upon.
I wonder what the reactions would be if “freedom of speech or of the press” were infringed upon in a comparable way at the present time. It is not beyond reason that during the present crisis some might call for limits on speech and publications if the speech is contrary to the “ruling orthodoxy.” Just follow curtailment of speech on public campuses to see how this works.
What are some of the more egregious violations of freedom of religion and assembly?
- California: Pastor Roy McCoy found it necessary to resign as a councilman in Thousand Oaks, California because he decided to offer a Communion Service at his church that fully conformed to limits on cleanliness and distancing.
- Mississippi: People who attended a drive-in service by sitting in their cars with the windows up were issued $500 tickets. The Department of Justice intervened in favor of the church, arguing the church was being singled out for more restrictive rules.
- Kentucky: the mayor of Louisville imposed a ban on drive-in services.The church won in court, the judge saying that people were being permitted to sit in their cars for other purposes, so why not church?
Government cannot target religious exercise unless it shows a compelling state interest in restricting that right. And—very important—the government must use the least restrictive means necessaryto achieve that compelling state interest. Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, notes that as time passes the government’s claim for a compelling state interest will decline while a church’s position will get stronger every day.
Local and state governments should make clear that religious gatherings and services are “ESSENTIAL” services. To put it another way, government is outside its legitimate role to declare in-person religious gatherings “non-essential.” And it certainly is not being “neutral” toward religion. ***
In my 36 years as a pastor in Seal Beach, California I’ve seen first-hand how the presence, ministries and gatherings of a church provide critical spiritual and emotional support to the community in times of crisis.
A handful of unwise pastors have filled their churches with crowds in blatant disrespect for the government. Their behavior doesn’t cancel the positive role that a church gathering can now play when proper distancing, cleanliness and a limit on attendance are in force. Offering Holy Communion during Passion Week is a valuable spiritual uplift to those who come and seek it.
Having places of worship closed while “essential” cannabis dispensaries and liquor stores are open is ethical dissonance almost beyond imagination.
* The good governor said, “Science says people should stay away from each other.” Science says nothing of the sort. Science tests theories on how the virus spreads. The order to separate is a judgment made from looking at the current science. A hypothesis of science is capable of being applied in a number of directions by others, according to their own societal convictions. In fact, what does “science” say that would lead us to have liquor stores open and churches closed?
** Oliver Wendell Holmes gave this analogy in 1919 to argue that a defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Would we agree with him today?
*** The U.S. Supreme Court said religious organizations “contribute to the well-being of the community” and called for the government to have a position of “benevolent neutrality” toward religion (Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970).