Pandemic Culture Wars

by on

More:

All of which seems on par with the progressive media and activists’ attacks on the Salvation Army for feeding the hungry in accordance with their faith:

10 Comments for “Pandemic Culture Wars”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Mayor de Blasio and the leadership of Mt. Sinai, a traditionally Jewish hospital, have both welcomed the opening of the Samaritan’s Purse temporary hospital. That’s appropriate. Mt. Sinai, one of the best research/teaching hospitals in the country, is overwhelmed and should, given the dire circumstances, take assistance from Satan himself to save lives, as it is doing.

    It is ironic, though, that the CEO of Mt. Sinai, David Reich, M.D., a gay Jewish man, could not serve in the temporary hospital, nor could many/most of the doctors and other medical staff serving at Mt. Sinai. The two circumstances — Mt. Sinai’s openness and Samaritan’s Purse open discrimination — speak volumes about the difference between the two religious traditions.

    Samaritan’s Purse is taking applications for medical staff only from conservative Christians willing to sign and adhere to a set of conservative Christian statements, including but not limited to the anti-equality statements alluded to in this post.

    Samaritan’s Purse is doing this openly, without even an attempt to hide what they are doing. As I understand it, an applicant/volunteer cannot even get to the application form without first signing the statement.

    That is probably a violation of New York and NYC employment discrimination laws, but the time to hold Samaritan’s Purse to account is later, not in the midst of this public health crisis.

    • posted by Jorge on

      That is probably a violation of New York and NYC employment discrimination laws, but the time to hold Samaritan’s Purse to account is later, not in the midst of this public health crisis.

      Even I don’t agree with that.

      We’re investigating a hospital for “human rights violations” for firing someone who organized a coronavirus-related strike. Which I think really should have waited. Consistency is important, however.

      This is not some bean counting game, this is a public health emergency. So make emergency decisions and stick to them. Either let them in, or kick them out. I think we should let them in, but I wouldn’t be too disappointed if we kicked them out. Holding them to account later is I think little twisted.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    So make emergency decisions and stick to them. Either let them in, or kick them out. I think we should let them in, but I wouldn’t be too disappointed if we kicked them out. Holding them to account later is I think little twisted.

    It isn’t twisted at all. It is a matter of practicality and priority.

    Samaritan’s Purse has an obligation to conform to the law, as does every other business and/or non-profit operating in New York. Samaritan’s Purse appears to be flaunting the law, openly and with intent, and should, in time, be held accountable for violating the law, if that is, indeed, the case.

    My point is that now is not the time to enforce the law in this case, for two reasons.

    (1) Preservation of life is far more important at this point than observing/enforcing employment discrimination law (pikuach nefesh and all that); there will be time later to fine the organization for operating in blatant disregard of the law.

    (2) Law enforcement has higher priorities than enforcing employment discrimination laws at this time. If nothing else, cracking down on businesses that remain open in spite of the law, and cracking down on illegal large-scale gatherings seems to me to be a higher priority.

    Along those lines, the Samaritan’s Purse case is different than the situation presented by (a) Hobby Lobby and similar conservative Christian businesses that are refusing to obey state-level closures on non-essential businesses and (b) conservative Christian churches that are flaunting state-level bans on large gatherings. In those cases, the organizations violating the law are actively endangering human life, and it is appropriate for the state to shut them down hard now, and let the chips fall where they may.

    I have no doubt that Hobby Lobby will sue over this, just as several conservative Christian churches are currently suing through the Liberty Counsel. In a few years, one or more of these cases will wind its way to the Supreme Court, and the Court will have to decide whether claims of “religious freedom” allow Christians to willfully endanger human life by violating temporary public safety emergency orders.

    In normal course, I would suggest that claims that businesses and churches can defy temporary public safety emergency orders on the grounds of “religious freedom” wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Texas, but given the composition of the current Court, I’m not as confident.

    But, like the Samaritan’s Purse case, now is not the time to deal with the situation. Let Samaritan’s Purse save lives during the emergency, and sort it out later. Shut down Hobby Lobby and the churches violating the emergency orders, and sort that out later, too.

    I gather from comments over the years that you live in the New York metro area. My best to you and yours in this situation.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Thank you very much for your supportive thoughts and well wishes, Tom. I hope likewise on your end. Currently my family is all well (as far as I know), if agitated.

      (1) Preservation of life is far more important at this point than observing/enforcing employment discrimination law (pikuach nefesh and all that); there will be time later to fine the organization for operating in blatant disregard of the law.

      I respectfully maintain neutrality on this question on the grounds that the preservation of public order and adhering to the country’s most critical values are themselves necessary for the preservation of life. The proper balance is one best left to the government, however the fair execution of laws requires that adequate notice be given right now.

      On the rest I might not be too far from you.

      In NYC they are investigating coronavirus-related hate crimes that fall far short of danger to one’s life or livelihood (and I believe I already mentioned the strike-breaking). This reflects what is in substance a broken windows theory of law enforcement. If these hate crimes continue to occur, there can be negative social effects lasting far beyond the current pandemic that cripple the city’s ability to promote public safety and well being. I believe any form of discrimination raises similar questions. That New York City is governed by people who consider these questions in petty and small-minded ways does not change my view (I am confident in male Kim Davis’s ability to navigate any problems on his own).

      But I think fair notice is important. I do not believe it is helpful to change the standard of law or law enforcement retrospectively. If there are laws the city wants Samaritan’s Purse to follow, we should notify them now, the same amount of warning we gave to social distance violators, and give them the opportunity to comply, or leave right now. I am very concerned about the possibility of turning a blind eye now and sticking the charity with fines and enforcement action later. I think that is a horrific way to deal with businesses in general and helping professions in particular.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The proper balance is one best left to the government, however the fair execution of laws requires that adequate notice be given right now.

    I quietly suggest that non-discrimination laws in place in New York and New York City are “adequate notice” to Samaritan’s Purse, an organization that is more than sufficiently lawyered-up to be aware of the laws, and has a clear legal strategy for defending itself from employment discrimination claims when the occasion arises.

    The organization’s legal strategy is centered around a contention that the organization is a religious organization that is exempt from laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of religion. The organization has used the defense in the past (although, as far as I know, only in one instance and prosecution was dropped before the case came to court) and will, no doubt, do so if either New York or New York City attempts to enforce employment non-discrimination laws in this situation. Samaritan’s Purse defense (that is, the defense that the organization is primarily religious rather than medical in nature) is bolstered by its history of proselytizing patients in the “Good News” of Jesus Christ, and may well succeed given the organization’s history in that regard.

    That’s why I noted, in my initial comment, that the requirement that all staff and volunteers adhere to a set of conservative Christian statements is “probably a violation of New York and NYC employment discrimination laws”. I’m not familiar with the details of employment discrimination laws in either New York or New York City, but most similar laws grant a “religious hiring” exemption to churches and other religious non-profits.

    Samaritan’s Purse argues that it is a religious organization, dedicated saving souls by means of saving lives. The group’s Mission Statement makes its purpose clear:

    Samaritan’s Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan’s Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ. The organization serves the Church worldwide to promote the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    That clear statement of purpose, in particular the clear statement that saving lives is secondary to saving souls (a means to an end, but only that), may well be sufficient to exempt Samaritan’s Purse from application of New York’s and NYC’s employment non-discrimination laws.

    • posted by Jorge on

      They’re not the only ones who are lawyered up. New York’s progressive laws have a tendency to be just conservative enough to avoid the culture wars. If I didn’t live here I’d wonder how we got so many churches to suspend services. (Shame about the NRA suing over gun businesses being closed down, though.)

      That clear statement of purpose, in particular the clear statement that saving lives is secondary to saving souls (a means to an end, but only that), may well be sufficient to exempt Samaritan’s Purse from application of New York’s and NYC’s employment non-discrimination laws.

      That sounds a lot like the Billy Graham way of thinking.

      It has some interesting parallels to what Pope Benedict once wrote about removing the faith component from international aid being what turned the Third World into what we mean by that term. Wait, that didn’t come out right. I was trying to say Samaritan’s purse is aid with the faith component, not throw a backhand that the Graham theology destroys faith.

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    If I didn’t live here I’d wonder how we got so many churches to suspend services.

    I suspect that the reason almost all churches promptly suspended services is that the pastors of those churches understood the nature of the virus and human life above their own egos.

    A case in point:

    I am part of a support group that has met regularly at a local Lutheran church for many, many years. We are not part of the church, but rent the space from them on Saturday mornings.

    On Saturday March 8, the church had a very large funeral. Shortly thereafter, three members of the congregation who attended the funeral became ill and tested positive, among the earliest known cases in Wisconsin.

    The pastor closed the church on March 13 (well before our “safer at home” mandate, which came March 25), and the church has remained closed to date. Contacts within the congregation were traced, and although more cases have emerged from the congregation, the number is a lot less than would have emerged had Pastor Hansen not acted promptly and decisively, cooperating with public health authorities to identify and isolate contacts within the congregation. Our community owes Pastor Hansen a debt of gratitude, and the next time I see him I am going thank him.

    Most churches — the pastors and the governing councils of those churches — understand that endangering human health and human life is NOT the mission of their churches or their religion. The fact that all too many conservative Christian moron-pastors don’t get that is sad.

    There is no question in my mind that we are going to see virus blooms (blooms are clusters of infections from a single event) from the churches that have ignored the shut down orders. My own view is that pastors who ignore the order should be subject to criminal liability. The worst of it is that the infection will spread outside the congregations into the more general population.

  5. posted by Jorge on

    My own view is that pastors who ignore the order should be subject to criminal liability.

    That’s unconstitutional and more than a little communist. You can’t close religious services in the United States. Even forcing social distancing within them is a close question–how are they going to do Communion? Although, I also understand that you can’t detain people just because of their race or nationality, and we did that anyway in WW II. Just padlock the doors while you’re trying to figure out the right policy and pay contempt later.

    Part of me thinks it’s a bit unfortunate that Democrats and Republicans have such different libertarian impulses. Cuomo has some strange taboos (No lockdown order? Media is an essential business? What’s taking so long to fine social distance violators? Against a quarantine of New York or out of state New Yorkers?) that a Republican authoritarian would not (certainly Trump doesn’t). And you can name drop Ron Paul, Florida, Georgia, and Texas almost without further discussion.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    You can’t close religious services in the United States.

    You are overstating the case. The emergency orders temporarily ban all gatherings of more than a specified number of people in response to urgent considerations of public safety. The ban includes, but is not targeted at, religious gatherings of more than a specified number of people.

    We will find out in two or three years (depending on the Supreme Court’s schedule and the timing of lower court decisions) whether or not religious services are constitutionally exempt from such temporary bans.

    If Justice Scalia were writing the opinion, the bans would prevail, without question (c.f. Employment Division). I’m not sure what will happen with the current Court; several of the Justices now on the Court are more radical ideologically than Justice Scalia was, and Supreme Court decisions these days are something of a wild card as a result.

    But, whatever you think the outcome will be, don’t overstate the case. And if you are one of those who insists on attending mass gatherings in the name of your religion, at least respect the rest of us enough to self-quarantine otherwise so that you sicken and kill as few people as possible.

  7. posted by Maliapiorp on

    Hello to all
    In this baffling span, I proclivity you all
    Prize your family and friends

Comments are closed.