American Teenagers' Religiosity

 The Pew Forum recently released a study on the religiosity of American teenagers, see here.

Not surprisingly, most teenagers report having the same religious affiliation as their parents, but there is some variation across denominations.  Children of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic parents are much more likely to share their parents' affiliation than children of mainline Protestant parents.  Children of unaffiliated parents are also very likely to be unaffiliated.  The church attendance of children also matches that of their parents.  When asked about religious beliefs and values, more differences are found.

These findings are not too surprising as we that understand many parents will make the religious affiliation and attendance decisions for their children.  Yet they still do provide insight into the religious landscape.

American Views on Coronavirus-related Religious Restrictions

A recently released study by the Pew Research Center shows that 79% of Americans agree that churches should be subject to the same corona-virus related restrictions as other organizations.  See the report here.

This view remains the majority view even when broken down by demographic, though the exact size of the majority changes.  For example, 65% of Republicans have this view while 93% of Democrats have this view.

Of those who regularly attend church, most would like churches to open with various safety procedures in place.  In fact, this is in line with what is already happening in many congregations that are meeting.

Many churches have also adapted by holding online services, and the majority of those who watch online services say that they are satisfied with those services.

Pres. Trump's Executive Order on Advancing Religious Freedom

Yesterday, U.S. President Trump issued an executive order that states that international religious freedom should factor into U.S. foreign policy.  Among other things:

• The Secretary of State should budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance religious freedom worldwide.
• Government agencies should not discriminate against religious entities when awarding federal funding.
• Plans of action should be developed to support religious freedom in Countries of Particular Concern (remember these from USCIRF).
• Concerns about international religious freedom should be raised when meeting with leaders of foreign countries.
• State Department and Foreign Affairs workers are to undergo training in international religious freedom.
• Economic tools, such as the awarding of foreign assistance or the assigning of sanctions, should be used to help advance international religious freedom.

Because religious freedom is widely understood to be a basic human right (sees Article 18-20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights), it has long been a factor in U.S. foreign policy.  This itself is not new.  However, this executive order does outline some specific ways it is to be factored into policy.  It will take some time to determine whether it actually changes U.S. foreign policy in any meaningful sense.

COVID-19, the Court, and the Rules of the Game

The "rules of the game" provide the context in which economic decisions are made.  They tend to be stable over time, but they can and do change, and change is often prompted by an extreme event, such as a pandemic.  This current COVID-19 pandemic has brought temporary changes in the rules of the game for churches in many states.  As has been mentioned in other blog posts, the state of California decided on March 19, 2020, that no churches should meet.  See here.

Two months later, on May 25, 2020, the state of California issued new guidelines that allow religious groups to meet but with use of face coverings, social distancing, regular cleaning, and other practices.  A particularly contentious issue is attendance.  The state says that attendance must be limited to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.  This limit will be in place for 21 days, after which public health officials will determine if it needs to remain in place.  The full list of requirements can be found here.

The attendance limits were quickly challenged by a church in San Diego, CA, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that challenge on Friday, May 26, 2020.  The Supreme Court ruled that the state of California's restrictions on church attendance will stand.  See this short write-up at the Religion News Service here.

It is worth nothing that the court's voting was not unanimous.  It was a divided ruling, with the yes votes barely beating the no votes by a 5-4 margin.  The yes voters argued that allowing churches to reopen at limited capacity was consistent with the First Amendment because other large gatherings like movies and sporting events were also restricted.  In other words, churches are not being singled out.  The no voters argued that supermarkets and many other businesses did not face the restriction so that churches were being unfairly discriminated against.

The courts play an important role in the development and persistence of the rules of the game.  Changes in laws, which are a big part of the rules of the game, might originate in one part of society (like a governor or health official's decision), but the courts must adjudicate before the change becomes permanent.

Buddhists' Methods for Confronting COVID-19

Many religious groups are confronting COVID-19 by moving religious services online, but there are other ways of confronting the crisis.  As this article explains, people -- Buddhists in this case -- can also appeal to rituals and magical practices.

Several examples are given.  In Thailand, special talismans have been distributed at Theravada Buddhist temples to help protect people from contracting the virus.  Buddhist groups in Japan have practices expulsion rituals to clean their country of the virus.  The Dalai Lama has even encouraged people to chant mantras to obtain protection.

Of course, many Buddhists also engage in scientifically-grounded practices that help prevent the spread of the virus, such as wearing masks.  Yet, many people combine these "secular" practices with the religious ones.  We should not forget that religion is for many people a source of power to help them confront the challenges of life, including a pandemic.

Religious Exemptions to COVID-19 Rules for Social Distancing

The Pew Research Center compiled information about variation across states in COVID-19 social-distancing rules for religious groups, a matter already touched up in an earlier post here.

Here are some key points;  see their full article (dated 27 April 2020) here.

• 10 states (including California) have declared that there should be no in-person religious gatherings.
• 15 states have placed no restrictions.
• The remaining 25 states (plus Washington D.C.) have various types of limited restrictions, such as limitations on the size of religious gatherings.

Of course, religious groups in states that allow gatherings may still choose to suspend in-person activities.

Examine the map and you will see that the geographic distribution of these restrictions in very uneven.  None of the 10 states that forbid religious gatherings are in the south, and none of the 15 that have no restrictions are on the west coast or in New England.  Can you think of any explanations for this pattern?

Religion and COVID-19 in the Courts

Choices depend on the "rules of the game," and many of those rules are worked out via the legal system.  That is as true for religious decisions as it is for other decisions, and the we are witnessing an example of this in the courts right now.

Some church leaders have criticized stay-at-home orders for prohibiting regular religious activities.  In fact, this conflict has gone to the courts in Kentucky where a pastor requested that the courts allow religious groups to violate the state's ban on mass gatherings.  On Monday, a federal district court denied this request, arguing that the large religious gatherings clearly violate the state ban and that the state ban does not single out religion and so does not violate religious rights.  See this short write-up at the Religion Clause blog (the best go-to place on the internet for church-state developments).

A key matter is that religious activities are not singled out.  This logic follows a statement issued last week by the U.S. Attorney General William Barr, see here.  In essence, it is okay for the government to restrict religious rights in emergencies if religious rights are not being singled out but are only restricted as part of a larger restricting of rights necessary to deal with the emergency.

Of course, these arguments are arguments, and so there may continue to be disagreement.  In fact, back in Kentucky, some people continue to challenge the state's ban on gatherings, see here.  So far the courts have been consistent in their rulings, which suggests that this latest legal challenge is likely to be unsuccessful.

Should Churces be Eligible for Bailout Funds?

The COVID-19 crisis has been especially hard on small businesses.  To help them, the U.S. government's Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) allows a small business to borrow money to pay its employees' wages, and the loans will be forgiven if the business maintains its regular payroll.  The funds essentially provide the small business with funds to pay the wages.

The PPP allows religious institutions to apply for funds, and this Wall Street Journal article here argues that it should.  [Note that you can create a free Wall Street Journal account as a UCI student, though you may need to use the UCI VPN if you are off campus.]

We might consider two aspects to the debate about whether religious institutions should have been included in the PPP.

The first centers on the concern about employment and payroll more generally.  In this regard, churches have staff just like businesses do, and the recession can potentially affect a church in the same way it can a business, e.g., it causes revenues to drop thereby decreasing the funds are available to cover expenses.  Laying off a person who works at a church is in this sense no different than laying off someone who works at a small business, and if the government wants to prevent layoffs then churches, as well as many other types of organizations, deserve to be included among the organizations that can be helped.  Notice that non-profit organizations are also eligible for PPP funds.

The second centers on religion as a type of service different from the services that small businesses offer.  Religion is singled out in the U.S. Constitution as deserving special protections, but the Constitution and judicial rulings have also created a separation between church and state.  Some people have argued that including churches in the PPP violates that separation because government funds would then be used to pay clergy salaries.

What do you think?  Should churches be eligible for PPP funds?