SCOTUS Strikes Down Cuomo's Draconian Restrictions On Religious Services In New York

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Public safety” is not reducible down to viral infections.
Actually I didn’t come up with the premise. Cardinal Cupich in one of his closing remarks mentioned the right of religious worship is not absolute and therefore takes a backseat to public safety, or something to that effect. I’m working from memory for all it’s worth.
 
48.png
ProVobis:
That’s a low standard if I ever heard one. 🙂
Publicly worshipping Jesus Christ when a health hazard is present . . . is a “low standard”??
Publicly worshipping is one thing. Rubbing shoulders with strangers and exchanging respiratory droplets is quite another. The latter is not a necessary part of worship.
 
Rubbing shoulders? In a church which would comfortably fit say 500 people, 25% capacity, which is itself less than what is permitted in bars and gyms, is 125 people.

Easy enough to be as socially distant and then some as in any other public place. So why limit all churches and worship places, some of which can fit 1000 people easily or more, to ‘10 people or 25 people?”

And respiratory droplets? Why we are told that we can go into grocery stores filled with a couple of hundred people and be perfectly safe with our masks on, and using hand sanitizer and socially distancing.

And we can go into restaurants and eat and drink in NYC, at ‘25% capacity’ and consume meals and alcohol continuously over the time and more that a Mass takes. . . And yet the only time that people would actually take their masks off to place the host in their mouth is literally SECONDS only while the rest of the time they remain masked.

So yeah, bit of a double standard there and glad it’s being addressed.
 
Rubbing shoulders? In a church which would comfortably fit say 500 people, 25% capacity, which is itself less than what is permitted in bars and gyms, is 125 people.
That’s exactly the same point I made in my first posting. I agreed with the court’s decision, but not with the absolutist position that says there should not be any restrictions on the manner of worship. I was guilty of an hyperbole to make a point, but then I was responding to another hyperbole. Please read all my posts in this thread before coming to any conclusion about what my position is.
 

The Supreme Court Didn’t Overlook COVID, It Required Equal COVID Rules For Worship

‘Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical,’ wrote Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

By Ilya Shapiro

DECEMBER 1, 2020

Late on the night before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court granted an injunction against New York state’s restriction on religious services, with 10- or 25-person occupancy limits depending on whether the gathering is in a “red” or “orange” zone, respectively, according to viral prevalence. Although the justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts voting to deny the injunction on a technicality, it seemed like a no-brainer: Houses of worship were treated differently than many similarly situated secular facilities, so the state executive order couldn’t stand as a basic First Amendment matter (and equal protection, although the Court didn’t discuss that framework).

I called it a “Thanksgiving miracle,” with the Court finally pushing back on expansive and arbitrary COVID-19-era restrictions rather than blindly deferring to government officials. Then I went on to enjoy the long holiday weekend — Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday — with minimal time on social media or reading anything work-related.

So it was with sadness if not surprise that I discovered that the last few days have seen an explosion of anger and disbelief from progressives, academics, and Twitter trolls alike. The criticisms seem to boil down to two major lines of attack: (1) The Court is privileging religion over everything else; and (2) the Court isn’t taking the pandemic seriously or is substituting its own ill-considered scientific views for those of expert health officials. Overarching both of these points is the construct through which many on the left now view the Supreme Court: that a conservative majority is simply imposing its ideology, regardless of what law or precedent might dictate.

Those arguments betray a misunderstanding of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo — not surprising given how fact-specific most pandemic-related cases are — and read more into it than what it actually says. . . .

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top