Gwen, I agree with you that just because a place is legally open, does not necessarily make it a good idea for us to go there. It has been legal in Massachusetts for months to hold religious gatherings. The synagogues to which I belong have nevertheless taken the approach that "we are essential, we are open; our building, however, remai…
Gwen, I agree with you that just because a place is legally open, does not necessarily make it a good idea for us to go there. It has been legal in Massachusetts for months to hold religious gatherings. The synagogues to which I belong have nevertheless taken the approach that "we are essential, we are open; our building, however, remains closed until it is safe to re-open it." The last time I ate inside in a restaurant was early March. The next time might be in 2022.
However, I think everyone has been so busy interpreting the SCOTUS decision in the light of political movements that the actual decision has gotten lost in the commotion.
The SCOTUS ruling was that religious gatherings cannot be singled out for more restrictive treatment than similar non-religious gatherings. Although I disagree with the justices on many things, including jumping to issue this opinion when the restrictions had already been withdrawn, they make a valid point. Just because a gathering is in a religious building, or for religious purposes, that in itself does not make it more hazardous to health. Public officials are still free to issue restrictions on gatherings based on disease-relevant criteria, as long as the same restrictions apply to secular and religious gatherings. That seems right to me.
This entire pandemic has had us all in a muddle about what to do - partly because the scientists are figuring it out as we go along; partly because officials have to make trade-offs between competing needs; partly because 45 deliberately trashed necessary guidelines; and also partly because there has been too little public education to help everyone understand the reasoning behind any current guidelines and regulations. Massachusetts, for example, has a regulation requiring a 14 day quarantine for anyone entering the state. It has a long list of exemptions, leading many people to point out that what they want to do has just as much claim to be exempt.
Gwen, I agree with you that just because a place is legally open, does not necessarily make it a good idea for us to go there. It has been legal in Massachusetts for months to hold religious gatherings. The synagogues to which I belong have nevertheless taken the approach that "we are essential, we are open; our building, however, remains closed until it is safe to re-open it." The last time I ate inside in a restaurant was early March. The next time might be in 2022.
However, I think everyone has been so busy interpreting the SCOTUS decision in the light of political movements that the actual decision has gotten lost in the commotion.
The SCOTUS ruling was that religious gatherings cannot be singled out for more restrictive treatment than similar non-religious gatherings. Although I disagree with the justices on many things, including jumping to issue this opinion when the restrictions had already been withdrawn, they make a valid point. Just because a gathering is in a religious building, or for religious purposes, that in itself does not make it more hazardous to health. Public officials are still free to issue restrictions on gatherings based on disease-relevant criteria, as long as the same restrictions apply to secular and religious gatherings. That seems right to me.
This entire pandemic has had us all in a muddle about what to do - partly because the scientists are figuring it out as we go along; partly because officials have to make trade-offs between competing needs; partly because 45 deliberately trashed necessary guidelines; and also partly because there has been too little public education to help everyone understand the reasoning behind any current guidelines and regulations. Massachusetts, for example, has a regulation requiring a 14 day quarantine for anyone entering the state. It has a long list of exemptions, leading many people to point out that what they want to do has just as much claim to be exempt.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-travel-order
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/26/939367443/supreme-court-bars-new-yorks-pandemic-related-restriction-on-religious-gathering
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/11/26/scotus-rules-against-ny-religious-gathering-restrictions/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Gosh, guess SCOTUS forgot about the separation of church and state.