In The Challenge of Pluralism , Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper posed a question facing every democratic society: “How far can a democratic polity go in permitting religiously motivated behavior that is contrary to societal welfare and norms?” During the past year of the pandemic, states and local communities grappled with this long-asked question on multiple fronts. As Monsma and Soper wrote: “There is general agreement that when the exercise of religious freedom by one group has the effect of endangering the health or safety of others … the claims of religious freedom must yield to the welfare of the broader society. … But this leaves many questions. How serious must the threat to public health and safety be before the government insists that even religiously motivated practices must be curtailed?” The recent Supreme Court injunction in Tandon v. Newsom pertaining to California’s restrictions on religious gatherings conveys the complexity of answering such questions. Proper limitation vs. free exercise Under the U.S. Constitution, no right is absolute, even when it comes to free exercise. For example, no one argues the government cannot restrict religious child sacrifice. We accept that as a proper limitation. However, this becomes murkier […]
