The COVID Crisis as a Crisis of Trust

Brett G. Scharffs is Rex E. Lee Chair and Professor of Law and Director of the Law School’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

Ask a family therapist what is most likely to destroy a marriage, or a business consultant what is most likely to damage a successful enterprise, or a political scientist what will sabotage a nation – and you are likely to get the same answer: Trust, or to put it negatively, the end of trust.

When we stop trusting each other, or the institutions we inhabit, it is difficult to imagine what else we might do right that will compensate for the harm done by the eradication of trust. Thus, it is through the “prism of trust” that I have been thinking about the coronavirus crisis and its effects on us as individuals, and upon our most important institutions, including for religious leaders and the institutions they steward.

(more…)

Continue Reading The COVID Crisis as a Crisis of Trust

Coronavirus, the Compelling State Interest in Health, and Religious Autonomy

W. Cole Durham, Jr. is Founding Director of the Law School’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies

Experience with COVID-19 has refocused attention on the relationship between the state’s interest in protecting public health and the protection of freedom of religion even during a clear health emergency.  Does the state have unfettered discretion to shut down religious services? Can the state regulate clergy conduct in ways that preclude the administration of last rites? Can the state specify whether and how religious rituals are performed? Can the state dictate funeral practices? Is the state free to determine how “essential” religious practices are?

These are simply a few of countless issues that have arisen over the past six months. The challenge presented by such examples is complicated by the fact that different religious communities have very different religious practices, generating distinctive religious needs, and posing distinctive health risks.  Also, for a variety of internal religious reasons, different religious communities may have differing abilities to adapt their religious practices to publically imposed mandates.

(more…)

Continue Reading Coronavirus, the Compelling State Interest in Health, and Religious Autonomy

Quarantines, Religious Groups, and Some Questions About Equality

Christopher C. Lund is Professor of law at Wayne State University Law School

When the government imposes quarantine orders for public safety, shutting some places down and leaving other places open, how should it treat religious organizations and religious services?  A natural answer is that religious organizations should be treated equally. And that makes sense. Equality is a solid moral principle, with wide-ranging appeal and deep roots in history and in law.

But equality is not self-executing. And the deeper one goes into these quarantine orders, the more that becomes apparent.  We are trying to treat religion equally, but we don’t quite know how. I’m planning a longer piece that will go into more details. But for this blog post, let me simply try to demonstrate two things to you.  First, quarantine schemes require judgments about the value of religious exercise—which is uncomfortable in a system like ours, which tries to keep the government out of such questions.  And second, by insisting that all gatherings of all religious organizations be treated the same way, quarantine schemes become blind to genuine religious differences. We are deciding how much to restrict religious organizations in general by imagining what happens in a religious service, but our imagined religious service ends up looking a lot like a Sunday morning Christian worship service.

(more…)

Continue Reading Quarantines, Religious Groups, and Some Questions About Equality