Is Religious Freedom In Jeopardy? A Look At The First Amendment And What The Bible Has To Say.

During the current global viral Pandemic, it is apparent that some church Pastors are not following government guidelines designed to help save the lives of its citizens, and some have even vowed not to permit "any dictator law" to stop services, and have encouraged worshippers to meet, even shaking hands, despite experts identifying that behavior is an easy way to spread the virus.

The biggest argument is that the First Amendment safeguards religious freedom, which includes meeting in large groups. It is believed by some church leaders that they can make a constitutional claim to being singled out by a law that treats secular activity differently. As of this moment, no Government entity has banned the conducting of worship services, and many are live streaming sermons and services.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the five First Amendment rights are not absolute. The right to free speech, for instance, does not protect libel, slander, bribery, or solicitation to commit a crime. Religious practices cannot include human sacrifice. The First Amendment protects "the free exercise" of religion and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." These are bedrock constitutional principles, deeply enshrined in American Law, and repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is essential to understand the background and intent of the First Amendment, written by the Founders. One such document to give insight is the text of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. It reads: "… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced … in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

The intent of the First Amendment was that Americans are to have the freedom and right to practice any faith without any governmental authority ruling over the church or designating a specific religion for its citizens by coercion. In 2014, the Supreme Court held in the case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, that "it is an elemental First Amendment principle that government may not coerce its citizens to support or participate in any religion or its exercise." They have also ruled that "the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

The Supreme Court has also said that religious liberty does not exceed all forms of government regulation, even when the law clearly impacts a specific religious practice. The fact is that the First Amendment cannot protect any house of worship that defies emergency governmental edicts to protect human life from an international viral pandemic that threatens to kill millions, by limiting gatherings during the fight against it.

In late May of 2020, the Supreme court rejected an appeals challenge to State limits on large church gatherings during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Chief Justice wrote, "the Constitution principally entrusts ‘the safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the states ‘to guard and protect.’”

In June, and then in July of 2020, the Supreme Court, in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Elim Romanian Church v. Pritzker, and Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak ruled that the State may impose limitations on crowd size in order to make health and safety judgments. Regarding Calvary Chapel v Sislak, Chief Justice Roberts stated that "the restrictions of the State appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment."

Based upon numerous cases, the courts have shown they are more than likely to find there is a "compelling interest" in preventing death through infectious disease. The public health emergency of a pandemic would make the governmental case for restrictions on gatherings, including worship, far more potent than usual.

Courts have consistently held that such bans are not unconstitutional, so long as they are content-neutral and are narrowly designed to meet legitimate concerns such as public health and safety. As an example, a Fire Marshal traditionally says that any, and all group meetings which exceed a certain number of people, cannot gather in various places for the safety of those in attendance. If the Fire Marshall directed the ban against a specific church, political party, or group, that would be unconstitutional.

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or call for someone's murder. These are reasonable limits on free speech, and these restrictions have been upheld. Convening large gatherings could contribute to someone's death during a health crisis.