Theocracy Continues Its Conquest of Secularism

The supreme court made its first decision related to religious liberty with Justice Barrett siding with the GOP and its radical right ideology. This case helps elevate religious freedom over some pandemic-related restrictions intended to protect public health. Churches can now ignore public safety restrictions in the name of religious liberty. The radical justices argued that violated the Constitution for local officials to impose restrictions on houses of worship that are more stringent than restrictions on businesses considered essential. The presence of Barrett was pivotal in the majority because the court had upheld similar regulations in Nevada and California before she was on the court.

The decision was 5-4, with GOP chief justice Roberts joining the liberal minority. 

The New York Times writes:

“In a speech to the conservative Federalist Society earlier this month, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. amplified his objections, saying the pandemic ‘has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. .... This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.’

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, another Trump appointee to the court, took pointed aim at Roberts’s opinion in the California case and declared that it should no longer guide lower courts when weighing pandemic-related restrictions on religious services.

‘Courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause’, Gorsuch wrote. ‘Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.’

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Jewish organizations led by Agudath Israel challenged Cuomo’s system of imposing drastic restrictions on certain neighborhoods when coronavirus cases spike.”

As pointed out here before, the supreme court is now controlled by a majority of Christian nationalist judges. That radical right religious ideology relies on using the free exercise clause to elevate religious liberties to a status above other liberties and secular concerns such as public health. 

This decision seems to mean that churches can hold services with numbers of people equivalent to what is allowed in essential businesses such as grocery stores. In essence, that puts religious practice on the same level of importance as getting food. Religious group complained that religion was being treated unfairly. New York state asserted that religion was being treated favorably compared to other activities.