Top Ten Church-state Developments of 2020

 The Religion Clause blog offers its top church-state developments of 2020.  Not surprising is that the the COVID-19 church attendance limits take the top spot in the list.

California COVID Church Attendance Restrictions Upheld Again

In late November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not enforce limits on church attendance because of COVID-19 (see here).  Many observers wondered what would be the effect of this ruling for states that did have attendance limits in place.  We found out last week that it will not affect the church attendance limits in California.  See here and here.

The court ruled that California's limits were "neutral" because they allowed for churches to meet without attendance limits as long as those meetings are outdoors.  In other words, California's policy is not as restrictive as New York's, and Californian's can still fully worship outside.  Thus, Californians are not severely impacted by their state's policy.

Again, we must stay tuned to see if there are further developments.

Blasphemy Laws Around the World

Yesterday the USCIRF released a report on blasphemy laws around the world.  Read the summary of the report here.  The summary page also has a nice map showing how the countries with blasphemy laws are distributed around the world.  For those who are interested, you can read the full pdf report here.

The summary page lists several key findings.  A few of them are:

• 84 countries currently have blasphemy laws.
• From 2014-2018 there were 732 reported blasphemy cases, and 674 of them were considered criminal blasphemy.
• Most of the cases are in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, with over 80% of the state-enforced cases were in just ten countries.  Pakistan had the most (over 175), but others in order starting with the most cases were Iran, Russia, India, Egypt, Indonesia, Yemen, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
• Over half of the accused were Muslims (56%), and the other accused came from various groups, including Christians (25%), Atheists (7%), Baha'is (7%), and Hindus (3%).

Supreme Court Prevents New York from Enforcing Limits on Church Attendance

On 25 November 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not limit church and synagogue attendance.  Read this article at the Religion News Service.

We have been tracking developments on government restrictions on church attendance since the Covid-19 pandemic began, and you can browse several past blog posts if you are interested (here, here, here, here, here).  This ruling differs from the previous court rulings and reflects a recent shift in the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court.

The judges in the majority argued that places of worship, even in areas very hard hit by Covid-19, had been singled out for attendance restrictions and that the New York regulations were harsher on religious groups than on other organizations, such as grocery stores and pet shops.  If you are interested in the legal arguments, you can see the post at Religion Clause.

How this ruling affects government restrictions on religious gatherings in other states remains to be seen.  Current state guidelines in California allow for different types and sizes of religious gatherings depending on what "tier" of Covid-19 outbreak is experienced within the county.  Orange County has "widespread" outbreak, so it is currently in the "purple" tier which has the most restrictions.  Churches are allowed to meet "outdoor only with modifications."  You can see the different restrictions by tiers on state government web site here (scroll down to the link for "Places of worship and cultural ceremonies."

A New Methodist Denomination?

Over the last several years, the United Methodist Church has experienced internal debates about the ordination of LGTBQ clergy and same-sex marriage.  Back in January, leaders of the church decided on a plan that would have a final vote later in 2020 that would finally split the denomination.  You can read about this in an earlier post here.

But then the Covid-19 pandemic happened, and the plans were put on hold.  After some delay, some people in the UMC have grown tired of waiting for the disputes to be resolved and have now formed their own, new denomination called the Liberation Methodist Connexion (LMX).  Read this RNS article about the split.  You can also view the new denomination's website here.

The group has not revealed how many "members" it has as affiliates.  In fact, I could not find anywhere on its website where it refers to itself as a denomination, although the article calls it a denomination. According to the RNS article, members of this new group are not expected to leave their existing denomination when joining.  The LMX Facebook page refers to itself as a "grassroots collective." So whether this group should be called a denomination is unclear to me.  Nonetheless, as with any new group, its founding members are very excited about their activities and are eager to gain supporters.

Time will tell whether or not LMX will gain enough support to survive over time and whether or not an eventual split in the UMC will help or hurt them.

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Around the World

The United States Commission on Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is an organization created by the U.S. government in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world, just released a short report on the rise of state persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world.  Access the 8-page report here.

As you read this report, consider the following questions.  In which countries are Jehovah's Witnesses targeted?  What is it about the Jehovah's Witnesses that makes them targets of persecution?  What type of persecution do Jehovah's Witnesses suffer?

This blog post is written just a day after a related post about the Pew Research Center's work that shows religious restrictions continue to rise around the world.  This USCIRF report provides a closer look at how one particular religious group's experience forms a part of the larger trend.

Religious Restrictions Around the World in 2018

 According to new results published earlier today by the Pew Research Center, religious restrictions increased around the world from 2017 to 2018.  Read the entire main page for the published report.   If you are interested, you can browse the full report here.

The main finding is that the median level of restrictions increased around the world from 2017 to 2018.  This continues a steady increase in restrictions around the world since 2007, which is the first year that the Pew Research Center began tracking.  They use a Government Restrictions Index (GRI) that rates each country on a 10-point scale.

The largest increases in restrictions from 2017-2018 occurred in Asia and the Pacific, while the region with the highest overall average restrictions continues to be the Middle East and North Africa.  In fact, in many countries in the Middle East and Africa, there were incidents in which force was used by the government against religious groups.

As you read the main page, consider the following questions:  What kinds of restrictions are experienced?  Which countries have the highest restrictions?  Are restrictions more common with certain types of government regimes than with others?

And if  you are really interested, guess whether you think the USA has "very high," "high," "moderate," or "low" GRI, and check out where they classify USA in Appendix A.  Are you surprised?

How Religious Groups in Illinois are Responding to COVID-19

The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago conducted a survey of religious organizations between July 3, 2020 and August 10, 2020, to learn about how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The web site for the survey results is here, the executive summary is here, and the full report is here.  At a minimum, read the executive summary.

Here are some of the things that stand out to me:

• Larger congregations were more likely to have staff layoffs.  Larger congregations probably have larger staffs and so more people that can be laid off.  So this might not be a big surprise.
• The congregations with fewer financial resources are the congregations most concerned about surviving.  This finding matches what has been noted in other blog posts.
• Many congregations have adapted their services.  70% have started offering live streams, 39% have limited the attendance of in-person services, and 36% are offering pre-recorded services.  26% have suspended all of their church meetings.

The big question is:  to what extent will any of these changes be permanent?  Some of the congregational leaders who responded to the survey mentioned changes in their priorities, and that could lead to more permanent changes in operations.  But even things such as the increased live streams and pre-recorded services could continue.

Pope Francis, Same-sex Civil Unions, and Tension

The world has been abuzz this week with news that Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has revealed his support for same-sex civil unions in a soon-to-be-released documentary (on another topic).  The excitement is because this support for same-sex civil unions stands in contrast to Roman Catholic Church's long-standing official opposition to same-sex marriages.

This blog post here written by a Jesuit Priest at the Religion News Service does a good job of clarifying what we should take away from this news.  One is that this position is not new for the pope himself.  It's a position that he has personally held for years.  Another is that the opinion expressed is about "civil unions" not "marriages," a distinction that is important for a church that remains opposed to same-sex marriages.  There is also a figure in the blog post showing just how divergent views about homosexuality are around the world.  I want you to consider that figure.

Later this quarter we will learn of the concept of "tension" for religious groups.  Tension refers to how that religious group relates to its surrounding social and cultural environment.  Higher tension means that the group is relatively distinct and separated in its beliefs and practices from the rest of society.

However, society changes, and there is perhaps nothing that has changed so rapidly during your lifetime in many parts of the world than views about same-sex relationships.  American society has overall become much accepting of same-sex relationships (including legally-recognized marriages) in the last couple decades.  But that is not true everyone in the world, as that figures shows.

As society changes, a religious group's tension can go up or down depending on how much its beliefs, teachings, and practices change.  A group that does not undergo significant change can find itself in higher tension when society has changed, such as is the case in the U.S. with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.  The Roman Catholic Church has seen its tension increase as Americans' views on this topic have shifted.

Will Pope Francis's admission lead to a decrease in tension for Roman Catholics in the U.S.?  And how will the tension change in other areas of the world where acceptance of homosexuality remains weak?

COVID-19 and Competing Synagogues

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, many people feared that some churches would not survive the pandemic.  (See this earlier blog post here if you are interested.)  Several months into the pandemic, those same fears persist.

This article at the Religion News Service, written by a Rabbi in Los Angeles, discusses how the challenges of the pandemic will differ across Jewish synagogues.  For example, some larger synagogues have the resources to create nice online services, thereby keeping the congregation going, while smaller synagogues do not have those resources.  Will the smaller congregations be able to compete in a world that sees a permanent shift to online offerings?  Or will they be driven out of the religious marketplace?

The author also thinks that synagogue life will be forever changed, although he is not specific about what those changes will be.  But it is a good question to consider:  just how will synagogues (and congregations in other religious traditions) be permanently affected in their operations by COVID-19?  Will many of them transition to more online religious content and activities?  And will people view their own religious choices differently?

Court Rules Against a California Church's Appeal

When COVID-19 first the U.S., many state governments -- including California's government -- issued orders that religious groups must cancel all in-person church meetings because of fears that COVID-19 would be transmitted among religious church-goers.  While some states issued blanket prohibitions, other states did not place any restrictions on churches, and still others states were in between -- see here.

Although most Americans were okay with churches being restricted like other (secular) organizations and business, some think that religious groups should be have special permission to meet during the pandemic -- see here.  Given the disagreement, it should not be surprising that some parties have initiated legal challenges to government-issued orders.  One of these challenges was made months ago from a church in California, called Harvest Rock Church, which argued that the California governor's order treats secular organizations more favorably than religious groups.  They lost this argument in court, appealed the decision, and just last Thursday, another court ruled against their appeal in a 12-1 decision.  See this write up at the Religion Clause blog here.

The court's Thursday ruling explains that the state of California is treating religious groups like comparable secular events that have large groups congregating together, such going to movies or attending sporting events, and that the church did not sufficiently counter the government's claim that going to church is riskier than other secular activities like going shopping that are allowed.  In short, the church did not provide enough evidence to overturn the earlier ruling.

Churches in California are now able to meet in person with safety measures in place and restrictions on capacity, but that does not mean that the issue is dead.  Churches can still choose to contest the current situation by claiming that the current restrictions still inhibit the free exercise of religion.

This episode demonstrates how the practice of religion is situated within social and legal contexts.  The right to meet as a religious group is a protected one to be sure, but the realization of that right can depend on exigent circumstances.  The same is true of other protected rights, such as the freedom of speech.  Moreover, these rights are continually negotiated and contested.

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?

Some COVID-19 and Religion Issues

There have been many stories in the news lately about the impact of COVID-19 on religious activities, and I wanted to share some of them with you because they inform us about what is happening today in the world of religion.  However, I will not consider this blog entry required reading for now, so you do not have to read it if you do not want to.  If I decide to make any of the material in this blog entry required, then I will notify you.

This article here examines the differences across states in the religious exemptions in their COVID-19 stay-at-home orders.  Religious exemptions allow a religious group to operate some or all of its activities.  California's religous exemption status is labeled "unclear" by the article.  The California stay-at-home order (see p. 11 here) specifically lists religious groups broadcasting religious services as an essential service, though it does not provide further details.

This article here discusses the increase in interest in software specifically designed for broadcasting church services online.  We see how the COVID-19 impacts some profit-maximizing software companies.

Finally, because earlier blog entries have already mentioned online church, I thought I'd share this article here, which provides a list of some prominent American churches that will be offering online Easter services.

Which Churches Will Close Due to COVID-19?

Churches, like businesses, must have funds to cover expenditures.  Wealthy churches have large endowments or other revenue sources that provide income in addition to members' donations, but many small churches do not have such resources to draw upon when faced with financial struggles.

This Religion News Service article is about the financial struggles of small churches during the COVID-19 pandemic.  One factor is location.

Director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research Scott Thumma, who helped lead the Faith Communities Today project, said small churches look different depending on the region. About 44% of these small churches are located in rural areas.

Churches in small towns or rural areas may have an advantage, Thumma said.  If a congregation is struggling in a city, there may be people who would want that property, "but in a small rural area the church can exist because there is not great demand for their building," he said.

Another is the membership's age.

Thumma said it's more common for small congregations — churches with weekly attendance of 50 or fewer — to have members over the age of 65. 

Data from the most recent Faith Communities Today research shows that in 2015 more than half of small churches (52%) have a membership that's at least one-third seniors. Whereas, in larger churches (with weekly attendance of 100 or more), just 11% have a membership made up of at least one-third seniors.

While having the ability to go online for services could help smaller churches remain viable during this time, Thumma pointed out that having more seniors in the congregation who are less likely to use social media would make it difficult to set up online giving.

So, which churches will not survive the pandemic?  We will just have to wait to find out, but we do have a few clues about which will struggle the most to survive.  Doing the research to find out which ones actually do close down due to COVID-19 would be a good research project for a student.

Zoombombing Virtual Church

Churches have had to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic like other organizations, namely, by connecting their members virtually rather than in person.   It no surprise that Zoom is a popular platform for doing this, but is it a surprise that with Zoom church you also get Zoombombing at church?

Whether a surprise or not, it is happening according to this Religion News Service article.

The article discusses some of the trade-offs that must be made when combating Zoombombing.   On the one hand, you want many of your virtual church services to be open to anyone as a part of reaching out and promoting your religious teachings.  On the other hand, doing so opens the virtual meeting up to Zoombombing -- sometimes offensive or vulgar Zoombombing -- and one of the best ways to prevent Zoombombing is to restrict access to the meeting, but that goes against the desire for remaining open.

Is this Zoombombing of virtual church meetings a surprise?  Do you think some religious groups might be more susceptible to it than others?  What is the best way for a religious group to combat Zoombombing?

How Much Would you Pay for an Exclusive Mass with the Pope?

According to this article, Rolls-Royce owners have an opportunity to purchase an exclusive mass with the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.  The price?  Around $112,000 … or even $155,000, which is the suggested amount.  Although to be clear, it is technically not a purchase but a fully deductible donation to the church.  The article refers to this as an "unusual" but acknowledges that the Pope has met with dignitaries and wealthy individuals before.

Yes or no:  Is this good for the church?  Why or why not?

--------------

UPDATE:  As reported here, Rolls-Royce has just decided to cancel this offer.

A Proposal to Split the United Methodist Church

Just one week into 2020 and we have what might be the biggest religion story of the year.  Leaders of the United Methodist Church (UMC) have now signed in support of a proposal for a split of the UMC.  The split is over same-sex marriage and LGBTQ clergy.  The denomination currently does not allows its local leaders to perform same-sex marriage or to be practicing LGBTQ.  The split will remove those restrictions, while providing funds and an easy transition for traditionalists out of the organization.  See this NPR article here.

The actual proposal can be read here.  Among other details, $25 million will be given to a new "traditionalist" denomination over the next four years, local church congregations can decide whether to stay in the UMC or join a new denomination by 2024, and congregations that do leave will be able to take their church buildings with them.

The proposal will be voted on in May at the UMC General Conference.  It currently has strong support from leaders of both sides of the split, perhaps because it is very clear compromise.  In an opinion piece here, a Methodist pastor writes:

Even with much grace sown into this protocol, many will still find this latest step toward a split disheartening. Those fighting for the rights of LGBTQ persons will grieve a compromise they perceive as less than full affirmation from all sides. Those who stand for theological orthodoxy, meanwhile, will decry the fact that they have won all the votes at General Conference, only to end up exiled from the existing church.