Church services seem to be a pretty high-risk scenario for spread of infection, IMO. They typically involve close contact in confined spaces for a sustained period of time. Activities such as singing, liturgical responses, and passing the peace could tend to spread virus particles. There often are high-contact surfaces such as communion vessels, collection plates, door handles, and the like. At many churches, there's a lot of hugging and hand-shaking. Many churches have lots of older attendees. I suspect most churches would have a strong negative reaction to requiring a temperature test for admission. From a health standpoint, I think it makes sense to treat church services similarly to concerts, theaters, sports events, and the like.
The DOJ letter to Newsom doesn't claim that there's an absolute right to hold in-person church services. Rather, it argues that churches should be treated the same as schools, offices, factories, and restaurants. If those activities can be conducted with appropriate social distancing, says the DOJ, then church services can too. To allow these other activities, but not church services, discriminates against religious practice, says the DOJ. Therefore, the DOJ argues that church services should be part of the Phase 2 re-opening, and should not have to wait for Phase 3, which is when concerts and sports events will re-open.
I can see the DOJ's argument. But in my view, from a health standpoint, church services are more like concerts than schools or restaurants, so putting churches in Phase 3 is probably best based solely on health considerations. Of course, there are First Amendment issues in play for churches that don't arise with concerts, etc. If I were in Newsom's place, I probably wouldn't fight about this issue. I'd try to work out some way to allow churches to re-open in Phase 2, with social distancing, hygienic precautions, and ideally with masks (though I'm sure a lot of churches won't observe mask requirements).
I'm a regular church attender and I would like to get back to church. Video services and Zoom sessions are a life-line during this time, but they're not the same as in-person services. However, in this context, I think "love your neighbor" means taking care to not infect your neighbor. I'm happy to wait a while longer before going back. But as I said, I don't think Newsom should fight over this.
The DOJ letter to Newsom doesn't claim that there's an absolute right to hold in-person church services. Rather, it argues that churches should be treated the same as schools, offices, factories, and restaurants. If those activities can be conducted with appropriate social distancing, says the DOJ, then church services can too. To allow these other activities, but not church services, discriminates against religious practice, says the DOJ. Therefore, the DOJ argues that church services should be part of the Phase 2 re-opening, and should not have to wait for Phase 3, which is when concerts and sports events will re-open.
I can see the DOJ's argument. But in my view, from a health standpoint, church services are more like concerts than schools or restaurants, so putting churches in Phase 3 is probably best based solely on health considerations. Of course, there are First Amendment issues in play for churches that don't arise with concerts, etc. If I were in Newsom's place, I probably wouldn't fight about this issue. I'd try to work out some way to allow churches to re-open in Phase 2, with social distancing, hygienic precautions, and ideally with masks (though I'm sure a lot of churches won't observe mask requirements).
I'm a regular church attender and I would like to get back to church. Video services and Zoom sessions are a life-line during this time, but they're not the same as in-person services. However, in this context, I think "love your neighbor" means taking care to not infect your neighbor. I'm happy to wait a while longer before going back. But as I said, I don't think Newsom should fight over this.