At the one-year anniversary of COVID-19’s arrival from China to the U.S., one thing is certain – the threat of government infringement on religious liberty under the guise of public health is here to stay. As The Who’s Pete Townshend remarked, “…meet the new boss same as the old boss.”
In his 1984 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan exhorted the American people, “…we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it’s alright to keep asking if we’re on His side.” This most poignant question should be revisited often. Our justice system may soon provide insight to the answer.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent church autonomy cases have focused on the ministerial exception to employment law. Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC and Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru make it clear that the First Amendment forbids secular courts from hearing employment law claims, such as Title VII claims, that involve ministerial positions at religious organizations. These cases recognize that churches, synagogues, mosques, religious schools, and other religious organizations have a right to choose their own leaders and internal structures. This means, as Our Lady of Guadalupe held, that “courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions.”
As we approach the 12-month anniversary of 14 days to slow COVID-19’s spread, several governors who early in the pandemic were trumpeted as heroes for shutting down their states—including halting religious worship—are facing serious backlash. Once the darlings of national media, each has been chastised by federal courts, their legislatures, or citizens growing weary of temporary restrictions that never seem to end.
A recent New York Times column suggested, among other things, the appointment of a cross-agency government task force to deal with disinformation headed by a “reality czar.” Apparently, George Orwell’s “1984” is no longer considered a cautionary tale, but for some has become an instruction manual.
As two days of national commemoration approach, Religious Freedom Day (Saturday) and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Monday), Americans would do well to consider the unbreakable link between the two and the lesson available in their chronological observance. The Latin phrase, post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, therefore because of this,” is often derided as a logical fallacy. However, celebrating Dr. King’s life and legacy after honoring religious freedom’s contribution to American civil society may be the exception which proves the rule.
 |
|
|
