“But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” — Supreme Court of the United States, November 25, 2020

When teaching law students about the Bill of Rights, professors often ask on the first day of class which is the first freedom protected by the First Amendment. The students invariably answer, “freedom of speech.” It is not. If the framers were trying to tell us which freedom is the first among equals, they did so by listing the religion clauses ahead of the freedom of speech.

The religion clauses prohibit the government from respecting the establishment of religion and from interfering with its free exercise.

This is not an academic issue. Recent events have demonstrated that the free exercise of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791 when the First Amendment was ratified. Numerous state governors have targeted the free exercise of religion in their multifaceted assaults on personal liberty in the name of public safety. Last week, the Supreme Court put a stop to one of them.

CAL THOMAS: GOVERNMENT’S ASSAULT ON FAITH AND CONSCIENCE IS FAR FROM OVER

Here is the backstory.

Andrew M. Cuomo is the governor of New York. He has been foremost among his gubernatorial colleagues in his ubiquitous television explanations of his various executive orders restricting personal liberty during the COVID–19 pandemic. He even won an Emmy for his hundreds of television appearances during which he educated the viewing public on his understanding of the science behind the pandemic.

He attempted to educate the public, as well, on his understanding of the Constitution. That understanding is wanting.

Cuomo established a color-coded system to indicate the severity of the COVID-19 infection rate by ZIP code. Red is the most severe and calls for limiting worship to 10 people per indoor venue. Orange is the next level, and it limits worshippers to 25.

Since the governor did not deem the right to worship as “essential,” even though he deemed campgrounds and bicycle, food and liquor shops to be essential, he imposed his 10- or 25-person limit on all houses of worship, irrespective of the size of the venue. He imposed no numerical limitations on essential venues.

Thus, a small mom and pop liquor store could be packed to the gills with customers, but a 400-seat synagogue or a 1,200-seat cathedral would still be limited to 10 or 25 people. This was such an interference with the free exercise of religion that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and three Jewish congregations in New York City collectively sued the governor in federal court in Brooklyn. They lost. Last week, the Supreme Court interceded in a splendid 5 to 4 decision that defended religious liberty in the face of government efforts to sweep it aside.

REV. FRANKLIN GRAHAM PRAISES 3 TRUMP-APPOINTED SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AFTER NEW YORK RELIGIOUS CASE

The court recognized that the right to worship is fundamental — and has been the law of the land for many generations. Yet, its characterization as “fundamental” was a shot across the governor’s bow because, whatever he considers the freedom to worship to be, he ordered that it was not essential. The court held that by failing to characterize it as essential, while characterizing other choices as essential, Cuomo demonstrated a hostility to religion.

Stated differently, if having more than 10 or 25 people in a large synagogue or church is likely to harm public health, then why is having 500 people in a Walmart or folks packed like sardines in a liquor store not likely to impair public health?

Because the religion clauses are articulated in the First Amendment — and because the freedom to worship is a natural right — the government can only interfere with them by meeting a demanding jurisprudential test called strict scrutiny. This mandates that the government must have a compelling state interest it is attempting to serve by the least-restrictive means.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

It also means that a fundamental right cannot be targeted when other rights that may or may not be fundamental are left to individual choices.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, which was released at 2:12 a.m., was a response to an emergency application. After the plaintiffs lost at the trial court, they asked the trial judge to enjoin the governor during the pendency of their appeal so their congregants could worship during the coming holidays. The court declined. Then the plaintiffs asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for a temporary injunction until that court could hear their appeal. It declined.

Then the plaintiffs threw their Hail Mary pass and asked the Supreme Court to enjoin Cuomo during the pendency of their appeal.

That pass ended up being a touchdown with no time left on the clock. The Supreme Court not only issued an injunction preventing the governor from limiting the number of worshippers at the religious venues that sued, but it did so in such sweeping, liberty-embracing language that will surely apply to all religious venues in the land.

Reading the court’s decision, and particularly the thoughtful and brilliant concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch — who wrote that “government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis” — one can see that Cuomo lost this case because while he may understand the science, he does not understand the jurisprudence.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Freedom of religion is not the first freedom by mistake. It was the judgment of the framers that this freedom is as essential to human fulfillment as are any other free choices that free people make.

By failing to recognize that natural, historic and jurisprudential truism, Cuomo doomed his executive order to the ash bin of history.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

In an exclusive interview with Outlook’s Lachmi Deb Roy, actor-turned-politician Urmila Matondkar talks about her reasons for joining Shiv Sena and her political ideologies.

Excerpts:

Q) What are your reasons for joining Shiv Sena?

When I quit the Congress, I said I am not quitting politics, but I was just quitting the party. I said I would continue to work for the people which I was continuing. Meanwhile, I was also looking at the way the Uddhav Thackrey government was handling the situation in Maharashtra in the past one year. They were thrown into a terrible year of debacles and difficulties which of course included Covid-19 above all. It also handled the difficulties of the farmers in the interiors of Maharashtra. So, along with Covid there were other natural calamities that Maharashtra had to deal with.  It was probably one of the most difficult years for Maharashtra.

I admired the way Uddhav Thackeray was holding on and running the government and he came across as an extremely able leader who will be taking everybody along and doing justice to the situation and the people of Maharashtra. So, when I got a call from him asking me to join MLC. He also suggested that Maharashtra which has always been a state which has led the rest of the country on many levels like intellectually and culturally and socially in terms of the social reforms etc. He said that if people like me come to the Vidhan Parishad that will be a beautiful thing for the government and the people of Maharashtra. That struck a chord and I felt that made sense to me because of the kind of work that I was already doing for the people of Maharashtra, now I can do it on a much larger and bigger level if I am supported by a party because if you get party’s support and people’s support on a bigger level, then you are able to do better work.

Q) You quit Congress, what were the reasons behind it?

It’s surprising that the way people are asking that question as if I have quit Congress 14 hours ago. I quit Congress about 14 months ago. It’s been over a year that I have quit it, I don’t want to go into the details of it now because I don’t want to give flak to Congress leadership. I still have a lot of regard for Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi and in Maharashtra people like Balasaheb Thorat. But there were definitely issues that I went through a post-election process which were very disheartening and extremely discouraging as a newcomer who needed a lot of support, which I didn’t get at that time from the party.

Q) Political ideologies that you like about Shiv Sena…

I come from an extremely socialist and secular kind of a background. But I feel the whole meaning of “Hindutva” has somewhere lost its whole meaning and it’s been used so callously and carelessly that it seems that people have kind of forgotten the meaning of it. Being secular doesn’t mean that you will have complete disrespect or hatred towards religion or god or any religious rituals. It just means co-existence. Words like “Hindutva” have been used in such a bad light by certain people to serve the vested interest of certain people. Hindu dharma is not just a religion, it’s a way of life. It teaches you to lead your life and take it to the best part of yourself. It’s always been a religion of tolerance and universal acceptance. It has always been all inclusive and Hinduism I would say is the most tolerant of all the religions of the world. But unfortunately, that whole concept has been taken and made into “this is not Hindutva vs that is not Hindutva”. And people have also come up with strange concepts like hard Hindutva and soft Hindutva. All these things have no meaning and what I want to do come from co-existence of all religions. When I was in Congress also, I believed that my religion doesn’t teach me to hate other religions. It teaches me to respect my religion above all. If you see the way Maha Vikas Agadhi and Shiv Sena have dealt with issues of Maharashtra, I think that itself is self-explanatory. I want to serve the people of Maharashtra irrespective of what caste, language or religion a person comes from. That has been my simple philosophy and I am not going to back off from it. That is something that I always stood by and will always stand by in the future even if I am in a strongly Hindutva-oriented party.

Q) How happy are you being a part of the Shiv Sena’s women’s wing?

I am extremely happy to be a part of Shiv Sena in general because of Shiv Sainik and the women of Shiv Sena because that is the biggest strength of Shiv Sena. Fighting social injustice in any part of Maharashtra is my aim and that is what I intend to do being a part of this party.

There is no scarcity of the issues that I am going to fight for. The government at the Centre is only concentrating on everything else except for the core issues of the country. However, we cannot just keep crying over that and we need to start working from somewhere.

For me, women’s issues and children issues are extremely important. There is so much that needs to be done in terms of women’s health facilities, hygiene facilities and economic independence and children simply because they are the future. And also, Maharashtra is the land of Mahatma Phule and his wife Savitribai Phule, who then worked for the education of the people. Education has always been a very core and important part of Maharashtra and that needs to reach to the kids and poor children of Maharashtra on a much bigger level.

Q) Going back to Bollywood, we last saw you in ‘Blackmail’ in 2018, do you miss the entertainment industry? We miss seeing our Rangeela girl on the big screen.

Movies and working in films have always been my first love and having said that politics is something that is going to take way more time, energy and focus because it is a new line for me. But again, I am not missing working in films because the challenges in politics are huge and the situation and circumstances that we are working in is very poisonous and it is sad that the political scenario in India has hit an all-time low. It’s really in bad shape. I have seen the old footages of Parliament or Vidhan Sabha where people in Opposition are friends, they may criticise each other and can have ideological differences, but today there seems to be no boundaries as to where the criticisms should stop. The challenges of working in politics are going to be so huge that I don’t see getting into the movie business for now.

           <div><hr/>&#13;
    <b><i>For in-depth, objective and more importantly balanced journalism, <a href="https://magazine.outlookindia.com/subscription?utm_source=story_page" rel="nofollow">Click here</a> to subscribe to Outlook Magazine </i></b>&#13;
    <hr/>&#13;
    </div>&#13;

… rethink of the link between religion and human rights. Protests … situating the global threat of religion-based human rights abuses.
… religious believers to value their religion, their holy book, their … Author Leo Igwe
The post Religion and Human Rights Abuses: …

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

                  <em>“But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”</em><br/>— <a href="/topics/supreme-court/">Supreme Court</a> of the United States, Nov. 25, 2020












                  When teaching law students about the Bill of Rights, professors often ask on the first day of class which is the first freedom protected by the First Amendment. The students invariably answer, “freedom of speech.” It is not. If the framers were trying to tell us which freedom is the first among equals, they did so by listing the religion clauses ahead of the freedom of speech.












                  The religion clauses prohibit the government from respecting the establishment of religion and from interfering with its free exercise.
















                  This is not an academic issue. Recent events have demonstrated that the free exercise of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified. Numerous state governors have targeted the free exercise of religion in their multifaceted assaults on personal liberty in the name of public safety. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to one of them.












                  Here is the backstory.














                  <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Andrew M. Cuomo</a> is the governor of New York. He has been foremost among his gubernatorial colleagues in his ubiquitous television explanations of his various executive orders restricting personal liberty during the COVID–19 pandemic. He even won an Emmy for his hundreds of television appearances during which he educated the viewing public on his understanding of the science behind the pandemic.




























                  He attempted to educate the public, as well, on his understanding of the U.S. Constitution. That understanding is wanting.












                  Mr. <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Cuomo</a> established a color-coded system to indicate the severity of the COVID-19 infection rate by ZIP code. Red is the most severe and calls for limiting worship to 10 people per indoor venue. Orange is the next level, and it limits worshippers to 25.












                  Since the governor did not deem the right to worship as “essential,” even though he deemed campgrounds and bicycles, food and liquor shops to be essential, he imposed his 10- or 25-person limit on all houses of worship, irrespective of the size of the venue. He imposed no numerical limitations on essential venues.









                    <a name="pagebreak"/>




                  Thus, a small mom and pop liquor store could be packed to the gills with customers, but a 400-seat synagogue or a 1,200-seat cathedral would still be limited to 10 or 25 people. This was such an interference with the free exercise of religion that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and three Jewish congregations in New York City collectively sued the governor in federal court in Brooklyn. They lost. Last week, the <a href="/topics/supreme-court/">Supreme Court</a> interceded in a splendid 5-4 decision that defended religious liberty in the face of government efforts to sweep it aside.










                  The court recognized that the right to worship is fundamental — and has been the law of the land for many generations. Yet, its characterization as “fundamental” was a shot across the governor’s bow because, whatever he considers the freedom to worship to be, he ordered that it was not essential. The court held that by failing to characterize it as essential, while characterizing other choices as essential, Mr. <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Cuomo</a> demonstrated a hostility to religion.

                  Stated differently, if having more than 10 or 25 people in a large synagogue or church is likely to harm public health, then why is having 500 people in a Walmart or folks packed like sardines in a liquor store not likely to impair public health? 

                  Because the religion clauses are articulated in the First Amendment — and because the freedom to worship is a natural right — the government can only interfere with them by meeting a demanding jurisprudential test called strict scrutiny. This mandates that the government must have a compelling state interest it is attempting to serve by the least-restrictive means.

                  It also means that a fundamental right cannot be targeted when other rights that may or may not be fundamental are left to individual choices.

                  The <a href="/topics/supreme-court/">Supreme Court</a>’s ruling, which was released at 2:12 a.m., was a response to an emergency application. After the plaintiffs lost at the trial court, they asked the trial judge to enjoin the governor during the pendency of their appeal so their congregants could worship during the coming holidays. The court declined. Then the plaintiffs asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for a temporary injunction until that court could hear their appeal. It declined.

                  Then the plaintiffs threw their Hail Mary pass and asked the <a href="/topics/supreme-court/">Supreme Court</a> to enjoin Mr. <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Cuomo</a> during the pendency of their appeal.

                  That pass ended up being a touchdown with no time left on the clock. The <a href="/topics/supreme-court/">Supreme Court</a> not only issued an injunction preventing the governor from limiting the number of worshippers at the religious venues that sued, but it did so in such sweeping, liberty-embracing language that will surely apply to all religious venues in the land.

                  Reading the court’s decision, and particularly the thoughtful and brilliant concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch — who wrote that “government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis” — one can see that Mr. <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Cuomo</a> lost this case because while he may understand the science, he does not understand the jurisprudence.

                  Freedom of religion is not the first freedom by mistake. It was the judgment of the framers that this freedom is as essential to human fulfillment as are any other free choices that free people make.

                  By failing to recognize that natural, historic and jurisprudential truism, Mr. <a href="/topics/andrew-m-cuomo/">Cuomo</a> doomed his executive order to the ash bin of history.

                  <em>• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.</em>







              <div id="newsletter-form-story">

                  <div class="block-content" id="opinion-signup-block">
                    <h3 class="block-title">Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter</h3>

                  </div>


             </div>