PROJECT FORTRESS 11.1.20
BY ALAN W. DOWD
Next month marks the 229th anniversary of ratification of the Bill of Rights. The Founders designed the Bill
of Rights as a bulwark for individual liberty against government
coercion. Regrettably, our government’s respect for the Bill of
Rights—especially the First Amendment’s protection of religious
liberty—was an early victim of pandemic panic.Refreshing
Before getting into how state and local governments have trampled the
Bill of Rights in response to COVID19, it may be helpful to offer a
refresher on the rights guaranteed by these first 10 amendments to the
Constitution.
The First Amendment bars the government from
establishing an official religion, requiring religious activity or
“prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. It also protects freedom of
speech and the press, the right to “peaceably” assemble, and the right
to petition government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment protects the right “to keep and bear arms.” The
Third bars the government from forcing Americans to house military
personnel. The Fourth ensures the right “to be secure” in our homes and
on our property, the right to maintain control over what’s on our
person, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Fifth Amendment ensures due-process protections, protection from
double-jeopardy and protection of private property from being
confiscated “for public use without just compensation.”
The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments ensure the right to a public
trial; the right of the accused to know and confront his accusers, to
know what he is accused of, to defend himself and to seek legal counsel;
the right to trial by jury; and protections against the government
imposing excessive fines or inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments.”
Finally, the Ninth Amendment declares that just because “certain
rights” are not enumerated does not mean they don’t exist. Similarly,
the Tenth declares that “powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states…or to the people.”
Smothering
It’s telling that the first words of the First Amendment focus on
religious liberty—the freedom to worship any god or no god at all. This
respect for conscience—this notion that the government has no place
telling a person whether, how, where, when or what to worship—serves as a
foundation stone for our political system. We don’t have to worship on
the same days or in the same ways—or at all—to recognize this.
A story from America’s formative years adds some texture here. When
the Baptist Association of Danbury wrote President Jefferson with
concerns that “what religious privileges we enjoy…we enjoy as favors
granted and not as inalienable rights,” the new president responded,
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and
state.”
Of the many things we can glean from this episode—aside
from how later generations of Americans misplaced the source of the
“wall of separation” phrase—perhaps the most important is Jefferson’s
assertion that people of faith should be free to practice their faith
and that the First Amendment is supposed to shield the sphere of
conscience and faith from government. In other words, even Jefferson—who
was more deistic than devout—understood that the First Amendment, by design, exists to
prevent the government from preventing religious activity.
Yet somehow, at the height of the COVID19 panic, 15 governors in this “land of the free” barred Americans from gathering together
inside a place of worship; 21 other governors severely limited religious
activity.
Trying to be obedient to God’s call while being good citizens—the
latest expression of the age-old tension created by living with one foot
in the City of God and the other in the City of Man—many houses of
worship shifted to livestream liturgies. For individual houses of
worship to do this by choice is understandable amidst the uncertainties
surrounding a public-health crisis; likewise, for individuals to choose
not to attend worship services out of concern for their own health is an
expression of individual responsibility—the essential analogue to
individual liberty. But for people of faith to be barred from holding or
attending religious services by executive fiat is something that should
never happen in the United States.
Moreover, while livestream liturgies served as adequate facsimiles of
worship for some people of faith, the government’s action created a
moral dilemma for others: Orthodox Jews generally are not permitted to use computers on the Sabbath. Devout
Catholics feel called to attend mass and receive communion daily.
Indeed, Christians of all denominations are taught that gathering
together for worship is central to our faith. It pays to recall that in
the Book of Acts, which describes the birth of the Church, the word
“together” is used 15 times in relation to believers and worship.
Gathering for “congregational worship” and Friday prayer is a command within Islam.
The response from too many governors, mayors and judges has been, in effect, “Deal with it.”
By autumn—long after we had built up hospital capacity and “flattened
the curve”; long after the computer models were exposed as criminally
incorrect; long after we realized that assisted-living facilities
represent 45 percent of all COVID19 deaths, that COVID19 ruthlessly targets the elderly and
people suffering from certain preexisting conditions, that we should
focus our energies and resources on protecting those groups; long after
the data revealed that COVID19 has an infection-fatality rate not on par with another Spanish Flu, but more akin to a severe “pandemic influenza”; long after elected officials and epidemiologists were unmasked as frauds for allowing, rationalizing and even encouraging massive public gatherings to protest this incident or celebrate that championship—20 states still maintained severe restrictions on religious gatherings.
Indeed, on a single night in October, New York law enforcement authorities—implementing
a new executive order issued by Gov. Andrew Cuomo—handed out fines of
$15,000 each to five houses of worship. The Roman Catholic Diocese of
Brooklyn and an association of Orthodox Jews challenged the order. Some
Orthodox Jews were arrested for protesting restrictions on their right
to gather together for worship.
In upholding New York’s restrictions on religious liberty, a federal
judge asked, “How can we ignore the compelling state interest in
protecting the health and life of all New Yorkers?” It’s a good
question, and the U.S. Department of Justice offered an even better answer: “There is no pandemic exception to the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”
Indeed, the Bill Rights was written not for carefree times, but to
protect our freedoms in times of emergency, crisis and fear—times like
this. Cuomo himself admitted that city and state policies smothering religious liberty are not
really about science or public health, but rather “a fear-driven
response.”
Dissenting
Real leaders appeal to reason rather than fear. Real leaders help
people move beyond fear. Real leaders don’t use fear to justify policies
at odds with constitutional rights and human rights.
Alas, there are precious few such leaders in high office today, as the COVID19 crisis reminds us on a sometimes-daily basis. Even the U.S. Supreme Court—“guardian of the Constitution”—sided with governors in Nevada and California on twin 5-4 votes when churches argued that those states denied them the right to open
their facilities to the same level of public access as casinos, movie
theaters, bars and restaurants.
The dissents were scathing and spot-on—and underscore that First Amendment
protections don’t stop at state borders: “The Constitution guarantees
the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play
craps or blackjack,” Justice Samuel Alito intoned. “Under the
governor’s edict, a 10-screen multiplex may host 500 moviegoers at any
time,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. “A casino, too, may cater to hundreds
at once…But churches, synagogues and mosques are banned from admitting
more than 50 worshipers—no matter how large the building, how distant
the individuals, how many wear facemasks, no matter the precautions…The
world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual
challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits
Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” an incredulous
Gorsuch added.
A DOJ finding leveled at the City of San Francisco echoed Alito and
Gorsuch: “That we are dealing with a very serious public health crisis
does not permit government to discriminate against religious
worshipers…while permitting larger numbers of people to gather in tattoo
parlors, hair salons, massage studios and other places.”
To be sure, governors are granted authority to take the lead in dealing with public-health emergencies. But as state attorneys general, state lawmakers, state and federalcourts, and elected and appointed law-enforcement officials have made clear, that authority is not absolute; governors are not
empowered to rule by fiat; emergencies cannot last forever; and most
important of all, emergencies don’t override our God-given
rights—especially the right to gather together for worship.
Let’s celebrate the birthday of our Bill of Rights by reviving the First Amendment—and returning to the timeless principle that individuals and individual houses of worship can best determine whether, when and how to gather for worship.