Robert wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:30 amThe 1st Amendment is what is forcing the states to stop religious practice restrictions now. It is what allows us to home school. It is what allows us to not be forced to serve in the military. We, as Anabaptists gain so much from it. The world gains indirectly because it does set an example of religious freedom that is copied, if not legally then culturally, in many places, but not in all.
The First Amendment really contains three equal rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly. The past year or so has been an interesting case study in how one's view of those three rights is really colored by one's political and religious perspective. In both the Anabaptist world and the world at large.
We have had many religious groups claiming an absolute right to worship however they choose, and regardless of whatever public health measures the government put in place to curtail pandemic spread. And many multiple deaths have been linked directly back to churches that chose to meet and violate all distancing guidelines and spread the disease amongst themselves and beyond.
At the same time we had a summer of protestors who were simply employing their absolute First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." while the government sought to curtail that right because some on the fringes sought violence, or because people were "blocking traffic" or did not have the correct permits or whatever. Just like in the case with churches, there were many bad actors who's actions lead to violence and death. But also large majorities who merely wanted to use their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition their government.
I see these two examples of First Amendment rights to be exactly the same but I think most Americans come down more on one side or the other. There are many (including some here), who seem to take an absolutist view of First Amendment religious rights, but are happy to see the government use a heavy fist to stamp out BLM protests. Who would delegitimate protest movements simply because they disagree with the message. On the other side, there are those who are happy to see the government use a heavy hand against Covid-spreading churches, but are tolerant of violence and property destruction on the part of protestors. I see the issues to be exactly the same, or twin sides of the same coin.
With respect to churches, there was a legitimate government interest in curtailing the spread of a deadly disease pitted against First Amendment freedom of religion. In some cases the government took a heavy hand and swept up churches who were acting responsibly in order to address those few who were not.
With respect to protests, there was a legitimate government interest in curtailing violence and property destruction pitted against First Amendment freedom of assembly. And in some cases the government took a heavy hand and swept up peaceful protesters who were acting responsibly in order to address those few who were not.
In the end, there churches who's actions lead directly to deaths and caused millions of dollars of cost to society in the form of increased Covid hospitalizations, lost productivity, and so forth. And there were protests or protest organizers who's actions led directly to deaths and caused millions of dollars of cost to society in the form of property destruction. Which cost to society was greater? I have no idea. But upholding First Amendment Rights does have very real costs.
The parallels are absolutely striking. In both instances I think it is the responsibility of the government and the courts to seek the least restrictive ways to regulate First Amendment rights in pursuit of other legitimate objectives (public health, law and order, etc.) And in a free society that is sometimes going to be both messy and controversial.
