COMECE-FAFCE reflection on the role of the elderly in times of demographic change
COMECE-FAFCE reflection on the role of the elderly in times of demographic change
“Elderly people are a gift and a resource, […] they cannot be seen as separated from communities”, states the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) together with FAFCE in the reflection paper “The Elderly and the Future of Europe”, jointly published on Thursday 3 December 2020. COMECE-FAFCE General Secretaries: “Let’s transform the Covid-19 crisis into an opportunity for a shift of paradigm and for regenerating our way of thinking on the elderly”.
Entitled “The Elderly and the Future of Europe: Intergenerational solidarity and care in times of demographic change”, the document calls on EU and national policy makers to develop a change of paradigm and for regenerating our way of thinking in times of demographic change and in the context of the current Covid-19 pandemic.
“The elderly are an integral part of the family, a source of support and encouragement for the younger generations. They cannot be separated from society and relational networks” – reads the COMECE-FAFCE document, highlighting that elderly people are not only vulnerable persons, but also dynamic actors of social life.
The current Covid-19 pandemic revealed hidden vulnerabilities in our societies, with the elderly often in the periphery of daily life. According to COMECE and FAFCE, it is time to recognize the crucial role of the elderly, protecting, promoting and including them, ensuring their full participation in our communities.
The reflection paper recommends national governments to make use of the resources of the proposed EU Recovery Plan for investing in intergenerational relations and in new structures of solidarity – including informal care, volunteering and age-friendly urban environments – and in demographic and family policies.
The publication has been elaborated in collaboration with the COMECE-FAFCE ad-hoc working group of experts on the situation of the elderly in EU societies. The document serves as a starting point for a deeper discussion on the topic, which will also include a webinar to be held in 2021.
When asked what’s the most important thing an employer can do to be inclusive, Ayse’s answer is simple: “the most important thing is that they give people with a disability a chance to work there.”
Ayse is a social worker in Holbæk Kommune, Denmark, who works to support people with disabilities. As someone with a hearing impairment, Ayse has a disability herself and sometimes utilizes an interpreter in her role – bringing a unique perspective to her work.
Building back better: people with disabilities in the workforce
Ayse is a social worker in Holbæk Kommune, Denmark, who works to support people with disabilities. As someone with a hearing impairment, Ayse has a disability herself and sometimes utilizes an interpreter in her role – bringing a unique perspective to her work.
When asked about workplace environments, employment challenges and standards of inclusivity for people with disabilities, she explains: “I have struggled a bit applying for jobs, it has been a difficult process for me and I know other people with disabilities who have the same problems”.
“For instance, I struggled to get a job as a social worker for 7 months. I went to several job interviews and they thought I was qualified for the job, but they had a hard time accepting my disability because I come with a personal assistant – a sign-language interpreter. They believed having an interpreter at the workplace would be a challenge. This is a result of a lack of knowledge among employers about my disability.
“In reality, it’s not a problem to employ a person with a disability. In Denmark we have compensation measures that ensure employers will not face any extra expense in employing someone like myself who has a disability. For example, I get 20 hours of interpretation a week paid by the government to support my work.
“No matter someone’s disability, communities have to provide the best possible conditions for us to enter a workplace. Workplaces and colleagues should have the right knowledge about the barriers we face to be prepared to welcome us, as well as checking on how we are coping in a new role.”
Bringing a new perspective
Ayse also explains that sometimes she feels her disability allows her to better connect with her clients, adding that she understands some of the challenges and barriers they face, and that employers should recognize this as a strength. “If we don’t get a chance, it’s completely hopeless; but when we get a chance, we can show what we can do, that we have the ability to do a job regardless of the disability that we have, and do it just as well as a person without a disability.”
She speaks highly of her employer, manager and colleagues, who have made her feel welcome in her role, adding that the social aspects are also important: “The people I have worked with have been very good. Sometimes they write me a little note about what they’ve been talking about – and they’re very good at asking me to join certain activities, which makes me feel very included”.
International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Today marks the International Day of Persons with Disabilities and this year’s theme is “Building back better: toward a disability-inclusive, accessible and sustainable post COVID-19 world”.
People with disabilities have suffered disproportionally during the COVID-19 pandemic – often finding themselves unable to access the support they need. This can affect their everyday life, including their ability to work if the necessary support is unavailable.
An important part of building back better from COVID-19 includes ensuring that people with disabilities are able to work without fear of discrimination, while also making working environments as inclusive and supportive as possible.
Strengthening inclusive workplaces
WHO has recently launched a new policy for disability, which commits to ensuring that people with disabilities are included and thrive within WHO. The policy is relevant for all levels of the WHO workforce, seeking to make the Organization more inclusive for people with disabilities and acting as the primary framework for implementing the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy. WHO/Europe will begin rolling out the new policy next year.
Part of the European Programme of Work (EPW) – “United Action for Better Health”, includes working with non-state actors. Recently, Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, met virtually with representatives of the European Disability Forum.
Protecting the rights of people with disabilities to access the health-care services they need on an equal basis is strongly reflected in the 3 core priorities of the EPW: guaranteeing the right to universal access to quality health care without fear of financial hardship; protecting against health emergencies; and promoting health and well-being.
Giving everyone a chance
When asked what the most important thing an employer can do to be inclusive is, Ayse’s answer is simple: “the most important thing is that they give people with a disability a chance to work there”.
“We’ve got the abilities to work in this field but we’re never really given a chance. That is the greatest issue for me. My manager and colleagues, the people I work with don’t see me as a person with disability, but they have to have that experience of working with me to see that that things work very well with an interpreter.
“How do we start? We need to be able to put our skills and qualifications into action. So the most important thing for me is that we are given a chance. That is how we can evolve – both with our professional skills and socially.”
The European Union has made it clear to Britain that unless there is a breakthrough in talks by Friday it may become impossible to avoid massive trade disruptions on 1 January,The Irish Times reported citing a source close to the ongoing talks in London.
“Even if we get a deal in 10 days time, if we run down the clock too much, there is a very real risk that the deal can’t be ratified in time. We need to put an end to this somehow”, the source noted, adding the disruption is more than probable in the event of a failure to allow enough time for the deal to be duly ratified by the European Parliament.
The source noted it would last for as long as the negotiations continued.
The position echoes a statement made the other day by British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who stressed that the extent of the disruption under a no-deal scenario would depend on how the Europeans move forward.
The comments came as frictions spiked between member states and the EU negotiating team, with a group of bloc countries led by France warning that they would prefer a no-deal option over an accord that would prioritise Britain’s interests over theirs.
France and the Netherlands are deeply concerned chief EU negotiator Barnier could well go beyond what they can accept in a bid to reach a deal, while the negotiator has suggested he needs more flexibility to win Britain over, according to diplomatic and official sources.
“Obviously an agreement would be good to have but not at any price”, an EU diplomat said, as cited by The Irish Times.
Bernd Lange, a German MEP in charge of the European Parliament’s trade committee was briefed by Barnier on Wednesday as a member of its UK task group. Lange said that he was less optimistic a deal could be reached now than previously, arguing that given the facts he had at hand no deal appeared at first glance to be the better option.
“To be open and frank, I’m really upset about the procedure. There is no possibility for the European Parliament, member states as well, to have a proper scrutiny of the agreement. This is really, really going from tragedy to farce and this is really quite unique in the history of trade agreements in the European Union”, Mr Lange said.
“This is really the end game, and that’s also clear for the British side”, he stressed.
Likewise, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, asserted last week that London would by no means sacrifice its interests merely for the sake of a deal becoming a reality.
No Deal ‘Won’t Lower Political Temperature’
Yet, according to Julian King, the UK’s last European commissioner and a former ambassador to Ireland, a no-deal option is the least favourable one for all the parties involved.
“For my former colleagues in the commission and across the EU, it’s time they also faced up to some of the realities of the fallout from a no-deal. Extra barriers to trade would cut in both directions. No deal on fishing rights won’t help the fishermen in Ireland, Belgium, or northern France, and it won’t lower the political temperature around the issue”, he wrote in an op-ed for The Irish Times.
He went on to point out that a no-deal outcome would bring with it major disruptions, “internally and internationally”, as it will lead to “the inevitable imposition” of tariffs and quotas on trade between Britain and the EU, as well as between Britain and Northern Ireland, which would come on top of all the rest of the restrictions to trade like customs and sanitary checks.
Stalemate in Talks on Post-Brexit Ties: Sticking Points
Talks between the United Kingdom and the European Union have intensified over recent weeks as the end of the Brexit transition period – 31 December – draws closer. Speaking on Monday, European Commission spokesman Daniel Ferrie said that there is “no possibility” of extending the transition period beyond the current deadline.
The negotiations remain stuck on fisheries, with each side only ready to cede a maximum of 20 percent of current stocks to the other, according to a source briefed on the matter. Britain insists access should be decided on individually, on a regular – annual – basis.
The country, which formally exited the European bloc on 31 January 2020, has reportedly tabled a proposal to review the original withdrawal agreement, including fish quotas, in five or 10 years, in a last-ditch effort to talk the EU into reaching a compromise on the matter.
FILE PHOTO: European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and British Prime Minister’s Europe adviser David Frost 5 are seen at start of the first round of post -Brexit trade deal talks between the EU and the United Kingdom, in Brussels, Belgium March 2, 2020. Oliver Hoslet/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
Separately, there has been an impasse between Brussels and London for months over other divergences, namely, level-playing field conditions — the set of common rules and standards designed to prevent businesses in one country from undercutting their rivals in other countries, as well as governance.
If no trade deal is agreed upon, EU-UK economic ties will fall under World Trade Organisation rules starting in 2021, with the latter including conventional customs tariffs and full border checks for goods travelling across the English Channel.
“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.
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.
More from Opinion
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.
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.
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.
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.
Organic Fertilizers Market to Display Robust Growth by 2027; Leading Companies Such as Tata Chemicals and Agrocare Canada to Focus on Enlarging Market Share, Says Fortune Business Insights™ – Organic Food News Today – EIN Presswire
BEIJING, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) — China is willing to continuously expand the breadth and depth of cooperation with the European Union (EU) to inject new impetus into the development of China-EU comprehensive strategic partnership, Vice Premier Hu Chunhua said Wednesday.
Hu made the remarks when giving a speech at a gala dinner marking the 20th anniversary of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
China is willing to work with the EU to implement the consensus reached by the leaders of the two sides, and actively push forward negotiations on the China-EU investment agreement, said Hu.
China hopes that enterprises from both sides will give full play to their complementary advantages and promote cooperation in fields including green industry, digital economy, agriculture, and small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve greater mutual benefits, he said.
Hu also expressed hope that European Union Chamber of Commerce in China continues to play its role as a bridge to make greater contributions in strengthening the exchanges and win-win cooperation between Chinese and European enterprises.
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/>
<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>
<hr/>
</div>
… 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: …
<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>
