COVID-19 transmission in a church - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: COVID-19 transmission in a church (/thread-19744.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: COVID-19 transmission in a church (/thread-19744.html)
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - BostonCard - 05-22-2020
The question is what happens if you designate some activities as essential. If churches are not considered essential, then you could see a situation arise where there is a lawsuit challenging the designation of religious services as nonessential.
BC
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Genuine Realist - 05-22-2020
(05-22-2020, 07:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The question is what happens if you designate some activities as essential. If churches are not considered essential, then you could see a situation arise where there is a lawsuit challenging the designation of religious services as nonessential.Essential doesn't mean crazy. Even in the early days, you went to grocery stores with appropriate caution. There's no respectable liturgy that can't be modified to the circumstances. The Mass has been said in all sorts of unlikely places and circumstances. Zoom isn't that big a departure.
BC
That said, you DO keep churches open.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - 82 Card - 05-22-2020
The constitutional question would arise if the churches are treated differently from comparable non-religious activity so that religion is being picked on. Trump, in his usual inarticulate fashion, tried to make this case by claiming that church service is comparable to a liquor store. While a Marxist might argue that the products are the same, the comparison is inapt in the context of pandemic control. Church services are assembly uses. I don't see why there would be any constitutional problem with placing the same restrictions on church services as are placed on other assembly uses such as theaters, concert halls and lecture halls. I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that allow other assembly uses but prohibit religious assemblies.
I would argue that declaring church services essential, in preference to other assemblies, would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. I'm pretty sure at least 5 coots on the Supreme Court wouldn't agree with me.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Mick - 05-22-2020
(05-22-2020, 12:24 PM)terry Wrote: Trump just decreed that churches are "essential places that provide essential services" and need to be opened immediately. Excerpts:
“The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend.”
“If they don’t do it, I will override the governors. . . .”
“If there’s any question, they’re going to have to call me, but they’re not going to be successful in that call."
Trump made no reference to the health risks involved nor to any precautionary measures that should be taken.
Of course, Trump has no authority to override the decisions of governors on this issue. It's ridiculous for him to pretend that he has the power to decide this and that the governors must come to him on bended knee to seek his approval.
The new abridged text of the First Amendment reads, ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
That said, a place of worship is a superspreader factory waiting to happen. I wouldn't go. Couldn't if I wanted to. Diocese has shut down in-person masses since March 14 with no end in sight, and livestreaming taking its place. Parochial schools are distance learning for this year.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - fullmetal - 05-23-2020
The Constitution is not a death pact. Where the exercise of Constitutional rights presents a clear and present danger to public health or safety, I'm pretty sure the courts would rule against such exercise. Interestingly enough, the "clear and present danger" standard has been previously used to guide restrictions on the 1st Am free speech rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - BostonCard - 05-23-2020
(05-22-2020, 08:41 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-22-2020, 07:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The question is what happens if you designate some activities as essential. If churches are not considered essential, then you could see a situation arise where there is a lawsuit challenging the designation of religious services as nonessential.Essential doesn't mean crazy. Even in the early days, you went to grocery stores with appropriate caution. There's no respectable liturgy that can't be modified to the circumstances. The Mass has been said in all sorts of unlikely places and circumstances. Zoom isn't that big a departure.
BC
That said, you DO keep churches open.
Well, I agree with your first paragraph, and I suspect you will find few sources of disagreement. Our Synagogue, in California, is conducting services over zoom. The shelter in place orders haven't affected whether it conducts services, but it has prevented it from conducting in person services. So, when people are arguing for "opening the churches", they mean "opening them for in person services", and that could be more contentious. You could probably come to a compromise where church services are allowed if there is some limit on the density of people in the building, however, even that is somewhat risky given the length of exposure and the singing that may be occurring.
BC
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - terry - 05-23-2020
(05-22-2020, 10:39 PM)Mick Wrote: The new abridged text of the First Amendment reads, ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Constitutional rights are not absolute, including First Amendment rights. They are subject to regulation in certain situations.
From the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):
"But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. . . . Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
The issue is not whether First Amendment rights may be regulated, but whether the regulations are arbitrary, unreasonable, out of proportion to the necessities of the situation, targeted at religion, or applied in a way that discriminates against religion. Generally, "neutral laws of general applicability" will be upheld even if they have some impact on religious practice.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - oldalum - 05-23-2020
the simplest way out of the religion/first amendment/church/political/essential services knot might be to apply appropriate infection control requirements to any indoor "gathering"; e.g., can't have people be within 6 feet of each other except momentarily; no person can stay more than 60 minutes or whatever. so that it applies uniformly, without making distinctions for religion.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - terry - 05-23-2020
Yesterday, the federal Court of Appeals upheld California's restrictions on religious services, at least for now. The court turned down a San Diego church's request for a temporary restraining order. The court said that because California's stay at home order does not “restrict practices because of their religious motivation” and does not “in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,” it does not violate the First Amendment.
Gov. Newsom has said that on Monday, the state will release a plan to re-open churches. I'm guessing he will find a way to allow church services to resume next week, subject to precautions.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Goose - 05-23-2020
(05-23-2020, 12:28 PM)oldalum Wrote: the simplest way out of the religion/first amendment/church/political/essential services knot might be to apply appropriate infection control requirements to any indoor "gathering"; e.g., can't have people be within 6 feet of each other except momentarily; no person can stay more than 60 minutes or whatever. so that it applies uniformly, without making distinctions for religion.
Why would the state or county do it any other way? It is the gathering they want to avoid. It's purpose isn't a factor.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - 82 Card - 05-23-2020
(05-23-2020, 12:28 PM)oldalum Wrote: the simplest way out of the religion/first amendment/church/political/essential services knot might be to apply appropriate infection control requirements to any indoor "gathering"; e.g., can't have people be within 6 feet of each other except momentarily; no person can stay more than 60 minutes or whatever. so that it applies uniformly, without making distinctions for religion.
That is how the Bay Area orders are written. Our local order says:
Quote:All public and private gatherings of any number of people occurring outside a single household or living unit are prohibited, except for the limited purposes expressly permitted in this Order. Nothing in this Order prohibits members of a single household or living unit from engaging in Essential Travel, Essential Activities, Outdoor Activities, or Additional Activities together.
The churches are insisting on special treatment. They want their assembly to be declared "essential" in preference to other assembly.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - burger - 05-25-2020
Back to the original thread topic...
Quote:A single church service in Frankfurt, Germany, held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/24/21268602/germany-church-coronavirus-lockdown
In this case, the worshipers were spaced 5' apart, which just shows that the 5 (or 6) foot rule is not protective if you are engaged in behaviors that spread virus (singing, talking loudly, etc.) or spend a relatively long time with someone infected.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - dabigv13 - 05-25-2020
(05-25-2020, 08:20 AM)burger Wrote: Back to the original thread topic...
Quote:A single church service in Frankfurt, Germany, held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/24/21268602/germany-church-coronavirus-lockdown
In this case, the worshipers were spaced 5' apart, which just shows that the 5 (or 6) foot rule is not protective if you are engaged in behaviors that spread virus (singing, talking loudly, etc.) or spend a relatively long time with someone infected.
The article didn't seem to indicate if they were wearing masks. Curious how much that would cut things down. Somehow I have a hard time imagining many churches would mandate masks, though I do think if the priest recommended it, most would obey.
On a related note, a novel method of distanced baptism-
![[Image: Gun-Baptism.jpg]](https://s3.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Gun-Baptism.jpg)
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - BostonCard - 05-25-2020
(05-25-2020, 08:59 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:(05-25-2020, 08:20 AM)burger Wrote: Back to the original thread topic...
Quote:A single church service in Frankfurt, Germany, held in early May appears to have led to at least 107 reported cases of coronavirus in the area, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/24/21268602/germany-church-coronavirus-lockdown
In this case, the worshipers were spaced 5' apart, which just shows that the 5 (or 6) foot rule is not protective if you are engaged in behaviors that spread virus (singing, talking loudly, etc.) or spend a relatively long time with someone infected.
The article didn't seem to indicate if they were wearing masks. Curious how much that would cut things down. Somehow I have a hard time imagining many churches would mandate masks, though I do think if the priest recommended it, most would obey.
For that many people to get infected, I'm thinking the virus was spread via aerosol, and masks aren't good for preventing that.
BC
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - terry - 05-25-2020
California has revised state guidelines to allow churches to re-open, subject to approval of each county. Attendance is limited to 25% of building capacity or 100 people, whichever is less, for the first 21 days. The guidelines call for a distance of 6 feet between family groups, face coverings, temperature screening, and various other measures.
Mercury News article -- https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/25/newsom-california-places-of-worship-can-reopen-with-limited-capacity/
Full guidelines -- https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Hurlburt88 - 05-26-2020
My church is reopening with 25% capacity, no singing, and requiring masks. Persons over 65 and with any health concerns asked NOT to attend. Church is also offering drive-in services where all stay in cars, and video. I am sticking with the video option.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Genuine Realist - 05-26-2020
(05-23-2020, 10:43 AM)BostonCard Wrote:Just about every church locally is using Zoom and other programs.(05-22-2020, 08:41 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(05-22-2020, 07:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The question is what happens if you designate some activities as essential. If churches are not considered essential, then you could see a situation arise where there is a lawsuit challenging the designation of religious services as nonessential.Essential doesn't mean crazy. Even in the early days, you went to grocery stores with appropriate caution. There's no respectable liturgy that can't be modified to the circumstances. The Mass has been said in all sorts of unlikely places and circumstances. Zoom isn't that big a departure.
BC
That said, you DO keep churches open.
Well, I agree with your first paragraph, and I suspect you will find few sources of disagreement. Our Synagogue, in California, is conducting services over zoom. The shelter in place orders haven't affected whether it conducts services, but it has prevented it from conducting in person services. So, when people are arguing for "opening the churches", they mean "opening them for in person services", and that could be more contentious. You could probably come to a compromise where church services are allowed if there is some limit on the density of people in the building, however, even that is somewhat risky given the length of exposure and the singing that may be occurring.
BC
There is an enormous non-sequitur here. 'Essential services' does NOT mean freedom from social distancing regulation. Opening churches does NOT imply congregant services. Other commercial establishments that are deemed 'essential' still impose mask requirements, six feet distaance, etc.
Someone is spoiling here for a quite unnecessary fight.
(05-25-2020, 10:59 AM)terry Wrote: California has revised state guidelines to allow churches to re-open, subject to approval of each county. Attendance is limited to 25% of building capacity or 100 people, whichever is less, for the first 21 days. The guidelines call for a distance of 6 feet between family groups, face coverings, temperature screening, and various other measures.Not only sensible, but iinevitable.
Mercury News article -- https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/25/newsom-california-places-of-worship-can-reopen-with-limited-capacity/
Full guidelines -- https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf
Closing the doors altogether, however - like beauty salons - was out of the question. Also obviously.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - 82 Card - 05-26-2020
(05-26-2020, 08:56 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: My church is reopening with 25% capacity, no singing, and requiring masks. Persons over 65 and with any health concerns asked NOT to attend. Church is also offering drive-in services where all stay in cars, and video. I am sticking with the video option.
Sounds like your church is part of the majority of churches that are trying to not get their parishioners killed. The crazy ones are a loud minority that unfortunately will do a lot of damage.
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - Snorlax94 - 05-30-2020
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.
“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
“
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/supreme-court-churches-coronavirus.html
RE: COVID-19 transmission in a church - 82 Card - 05-30-2020
(05-30-2020, 12:52 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: “WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.
“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
“
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/us/supreme-court-churches-coronavirus.html
Wow. Only 4 coots for rewriting the constitution. Feels strange these days to have 5 of them agree with my analysis.