Worship bans ruled “seriously and manifestly illegal”

France’s top court orders government to reopen places of worship.

France’s highest court ordered the government on Monday to lift its ban on gatherings at places of worship imposed to combat the spread of COVID-19, describing it as “disproportionate” and an infringement on a fundamental right…

The judge highlighted that the government authorised public gatherings of up to 10 people in other settings and that as such the blanket ban “is disproportionate to the objective of preserving public health.”

The ruling adds that freedom of worship is a fundamental right which “includes among its essential components the right to participate collectively in ceremonies, in particular in places of worship” and that the government’s decree “constitutes a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with it”.

 
Similar legal action in this country is unthinkable, of course. Asked in late April about when Mass was likely to resume, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, said he didn’t want to “hector” the state on the subject.

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Freedom. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Worship bans ruled “seriously and manifestly illegal”

  1. Tim Neilson

    Asked in late April about when Mass was likely to resume, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, said he didn’t want to “hector” the state on the subject.

    Sends a message to Australia’s Catholics, doesn’t it?

  2. Lee

    The Church in Australia is supine.

  3. dover_beach

    Hector, really? Instructive that this happened in France which was relatively harder hit than Australia and our bishops nevertheless remained silent. Men without chests.

  4. dover_beach

    Tim, its not just the Catholic bishops. We’ve heard nary a peep from Jews or Christians alike.

  5. Mitch M.

    dover_beach
    #3458771, posted on May 20, 2020 at 1:33 pm
    Tim, its not just the Catholic bishops. We’ve heard nary a peep from J&ws or Christians alike.

    Once upon a time Aussies were known for having an anti-authoritarian streak in them. What happened?

  6. Mother Lode

    It is astonishing how governments really view anything done by citizens that gets in the way of their governing is viewed as dispensable and probably ripe for banning.

    People smoke? Well that upsets our health statistics – best clamp down on it. Some express opinions offending a noisy demographic? Hate speech! People want to visit each other while we are conducting our lockdown? Murderous sociopaths must be prosecuted.

    They really think we are here to enable their policies.

    Then they expect us to be grateful.

  7. dover_beach

    Mitch, I think that has been greatly exaggerated. What we imagine is ‘anti-authoritarian’ was really only casual indifference to forms and ceremony.

  8. Megan

    Once upon a time Aussies were known for having an anti-authoritarian streak in them. What happened?

    Not sure. I still have mine but I’m shocked by the ease with which almost the entire country has meekly fallen into line.

  9. Megan

    I also think that the anti authoritarians are out there defying the kommissars but without drawing attention to themselves. The increasing numbers of university educated softies are now at the forefront of decision making and prefer cowards position of not making waves.

  10. Rex Anger

    Check out the Open Forum on ANZAC Day. Plenty of examples of said anti-authoritariansim. All in their own little ways. And the police did nothing.

  11. John A

    Megan #3458790, posted on May 20, 2020, at 2:02 pm

    Once upon a time, Aussies were known for having an anti-authoritarian streak in them. What happened?

    Not sure. I still have mine but I’m shocked by the ease with which almost the entire country has meekly fallen into line.

    We have suffered under so much inadequate leadership, and succumbed for so long to sustained perfidy from our so-called “elite progressives”, that we are now prone to supine subservience.

  12. Roger

    I also think that the anti authoritarians are out there defying the kommissars but without drawing attention to themselves.

    I certainly did so, to the detriment of no-one.

    Not that I would describe myself as ani-authoritarian, but authority has to be properly constituted and exercised justly for the common good.

  13. Iampeter

    This is backwards and typifies the political illiteracy and leftist identity politics of today’s utterly hopeless conservatives.
    If only place of worship are given exemption from lockdowns then you have an actual example of violation of religious freedoms.
    Religious freedom does not mean special exemptions for religious people.
    The law should be treating us all equally and either we are all facing restrictions or no one is.

    This is very, very basic.

  14. You’re just an authoritarian shill Peter, please fuck off and die.

  15. twostix

    Once upon a time Aussies were known for having an anti-authoritarian streak in them. What happened?

    Nah like QLD’ers call themselves the “wild west” but are way more obedient to authority – especially the police – than NSWelshmen are, Australians were able to call themselves that simply because our infant governments hadn’t yet gotten around to having the scale and scope to assert authority over everyone all at once.

    It was pretend bravado while there was nobody looking.

  16. twostix

    Religious freedom does not mean special exemptions for religious people.
    The law should be treating us all equally and either we are all facing restrictions or no one is.

    This is very, very basic.

    Are you slow?

    It says right there in the article that churches were banned from meeting while other groups were allowed to meet.

  17. Tim Neilson

    If only place of worship are given exemption from lockdowns then you have an actual example of violation of religious freedoms.

    Poor old logic fail and comprehension fail.

    If he’d bothered to check he’d have found out that the order was only that the blanket restrictions on places of worship were invalid because they were disproportionate to restrictions on gatherings for other purposes.
    But he’s never been interested in facts – in fact he’s utterly phobic about them.

    In any event, how can it be a “violation” of “religious freedoms” to lift the bans on places of worship -nobody’s suggesting that atheists be forced to attend, or that the lifting be confined to any particular religion.
    It’s like saying that lifting the restriction on pubs would be a violation of the freedom to be a teetotaller.

    Iamashiteater is in fact this site’s number one cheerleader for government infringement of individual rights when he doesn’t like the right in question.

  18. notafan

    For what’s it’s worth some parishes are holding mass for up to 10 people, bookings required.

  19. notafan

    Yes

    Iampeters comment should be self embarrassingly lame and wrong.

  20. Boambee John

    dover_beach
    #3458769, posted on May 20, 2020 at 1:32 pm
    Tim, its not just the Catholic bishops. We’ve heard nary a peep from Jews or Christians alike.

    I suspect that another religion simply ignores the whole thing, and the all-seeing state ignores them.

  21. dover_beach

    IamMengele wrong on this thread too. Dear oh dear.

  22. Roger

    For what’s it’s worth some parishes are holding mass for up to 10 people, bookings required.

    The same goes for other denominations.

    But there’s no avoiding it – the higher clergy have been supine on this. Parochial clergy have little option but to follow the edicts of their superiors on pain of very severe penalties.

  23. notafan

    Agreed Roger.

    It’s a great disappointment.

    It’s not hectoring to ask politely.

    Every single open business has been able to calculate how many people they can safely accommodate at one time.

    Ie local Kmart

    580

    Local Vinnies 30

    Churches could also have an usher with a bottle of antibacterial stationed at the door.

  24. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld Aus

    Has anyone bothered to have a look at the Australian Constitution on this matter? Pretty sure there is a very real question about totally preventing people from attending places of worship. Anyone else out there read the relevant part.

  25. Crossie

    Lee
    #3458764, posted on May 20, 2020 at 1:28 pm
    The Church in Australia is supine.

    The leadership in Rome is even more so, Francis knuckled under to the Chinese Communist government allowing them to select bishops.

  26. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    this entire lockdown is unconstitutional

  27. gary

    A bit off topic, but it should be noted that in terms of the Qld govt not opening borders, this mostly harms the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast which are all LNP held seats (except Noosa which is independent).

    Annastacia Palaszczuk won’t lose too many seats in these areas by failing to open borders.

  28. Iampeter

    IamMengele wrong on this thread too. Dear oh dear.

    Yea, so much so that I’ve triggered the usual nutters and you have no argument. As usual.
    Whatever shall I do…

  29. dover_beach

    IamMengele, two other commentors have already exposed your error. Dear oh dear.

  30. egg_

    “How many people have to die for you not to attend a gig…” …or congregation?

  31. egg_

    The fellow who enjoys a “stoush” shares the same misspelling and fondness of “yea”(h) with Iampeter and BorisG.

    Stoush socks.

  32. egg_

    Alan Joyce talking about an 80cm? “dust separation” to get airlines going again commercially?

    We’re now in the realms of farce.

  33. egg_

    Alan Joyce says it’s safe to fly on Qantas aircraft, even with no social distancing

    Mr Joyce also said, based on expert medical advice, his airline’s other precautions were enough to prevent the spread of coronavirus on flights and make it safer than being in a train, bus or restaurant.

    “The way the cabin is set up, everyone is facing in the same direction with the seat essentially as a barrier in front of them … and the airflow is from top to bottom,” he said.

    Post lockdown, da curve must be AOK, Virgil?

    A miracle!

  34. Leo G

    Alan Joyce says it’s safe to fly on Qantas aircraft, even with no social distancing

    The ventilation system filters or replaces the passenger compartment air volume about every 3 minutes in flight, so on average only one percent of each breath drawn by a passenger has been exhaled by other passengers without subsequent filtration.

  35. notafan

    Troll accusing others of being trolls.

    Laughable.

  36. Hay Stockard

    Anyone know if Mosques shut down? Just asking.

  37. notafan

    Gosh the annual ABC Ramadan gush stories.

    Do they ever publish what Christians are doing for Lent stories?

    according to the ABC yes, anecdotally, no.

  38. BorisG

    And France is usually described as a leftists hellhole. Not to mention Sweden

  39. Iampeter

    IamMengele, two other commentors have already exposed your error. Dear oh dear.

    I’m sure if that was the case then you would’ve pointed to just one of them.
    Dear oh dear.

    Can’t wait for your next vague response, hedging and making sure not say anything specific so you can’t get caught on anything. Here let me help you: “aha! now you are proven wrong Iampeter, in some manner that I cannot say!”

    Troll accusing others of being trolls.

    Laughable.

    That’s what I’m saying.

  40. Pete of Freo

    I’ve been amazed, but not surprised, at the alacrity with which the corps of disobedient Catholic priests in Australia have bowed down to the fascist dictates of the makitupasyougoalongism of the unconstitutional “National Cabinet” (which now includes a South Seas Pom). Nary a whimper, apparently more concerned about rendering unto Caesar than rendering of humble obedience to the Church. Gutless tossers!

  41. Andre Lewis

    Do any of the western country Christian leaders around the world actually believe in God any more? We know they believe in climate change, LGBTQ… claims and socialism because they regularly tell us but not so sure about the fundamentals of their faith.

  42. notafan

    Pete of Freo

    Catholics priests have been obedient to their bishops.

  43. notafan

    Iampeter

    No actually I meant the suggestion that you and borisg were socks of, presumably, JC because ‘yeah”

    Both stupid and paranoid but you’d expect that from grig.

  44. Iampeter

    No actually I meant the suggestion that you and borisg were socks of, presumably, JC because ‘yeah”

    Both stupid and paranoid but you’d expect that from grig.

    I guess that’s easier to believe than the fact that you are politically illiterate leftists on a right wing blog and have no idea what you’re talking about and no interest in finding out either.

  45. Zatara

    Clearly fear of ‘hectoring’ isn’t universal in the Catholic Church.

    An inspiring example comes from Minnesota, where today all of the state’s Catholic bishops signed a letter to their congregants saying that they will not obey Governor Walz’s current order. Walz modified his shutdown order again today, but it still prohibits churches from gathering in groups of more than ten.

    These are excerpts from the bishops’ letter:

    Given our willingness to coordinate with the Governor, we are especially disappointed that his most recent order (20-56) does not address both the vital importance that faith plays in the lives of Americans, especially in this time of pandemic, and the fundamental religious freedom possessed by houses of worship that allows our country to thrive. The Governor’s remarks today further underscored a failure to appreciate the role of our Church and other faith groups in serving the community.
    ***
    The bishops of Minnesota are united in our conviction that we can safely resume public Masses in accordance with both our religious duties and with accepted public health and safety standards. We can worship in a way that reflects both the love of God and the love of our neighbors (cf. Mark 12:30-31). Therefore, we are giving our parishes permission for the resumption of the public celebration of Mass on Tuesday, May 26, which will give us time to be ready for the celebration of Pentecost on May 31. Parishes will be required to follow the strict protocols we have published for sanitation and social distancing and will have to limit attendance to one-third of the seating capacity of the church. No one will be obliged to attend, as the bishops of Minnesota will continue to dispense from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass.
    ***
    We are blessed to live in a nation that guarantees the free exercise of religion. This right can only be abridged for a compelling governmental interest, and only in a way that is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving the desired end.

  46. Zatara

    Sorry, I cut off the last paragraph somehow.

    That is why a large majority of states now allow in-person religious services, including many states that had previously suspended in-person religious services. We think that the executive order issued last Wednesday fails this test. An order that sweeps so broadly that it prohibits, for example, a gathering of 11 people in a Cathedral with a seating capacity of several thousand defies reason. Therefore, we have chosen to move forward in the absence of any specific timeline laid out by Governor Walz and his Administration. We cannot allow an indefinite suspension of the public celebration of the Mass.

  47. Pete of Freo

    Iampeter as you are a political literate it surprises me that you actually seem to believe that there is such a thing as “left” and “right” in politics. It’s a con job fabricated by the socialist utopians, the fascists in the bud. Any polarity that does exist is between totalitarians and non-totalitarians. As you invested in your political literacy you appear to have not noticed that those on the extreme of the mythical “left’ have more in common than those on the extreme equally mythical “right” than they do with those of us who just want to get on with our lives in peace, out from under the heel of dictatorial organs of the State which only differ on their choice of targets to demonize, and whose power should be limited to making sure our garbage and shit are taken care of safely.
    I am thinking that your continual focus upon and apparent confusion about left and right is likely a reflection of the difficulty you must have in choosing which hand is your favorite sexual partner. My belief is that the current leader of the Federal Opposition may be able to recommend a therapist who can help you with this problem; his contact details may be found on his website.
    Libertarians are just not totalitarians, ergo, they are neither of your mythical polarities, but situated somewhere on a line between Totalitarians and Libertarians; the ACTUAL dichotomy. To visualise this, get yourself a piece of paper, I daresay you have a box of tissues close to the lube near your keyboard, don’t use these as they will tear. Draw a line, go from left to right,or the other way. On the left end write “Left”, and on the right end write “Right”. In the middle write “Libertarians”. Fold the paper in two so that Right sits over Left. I know you’re particular, you can do it the other way if you want. Now you may have to use your imagination, just imagine that the paper which now obscures the writing is the screen that all of the political illiterates can’t see through because what’s under the screen is the actual dichotomy: Left/ Right on one end of the line, Libertarians on the other.
    For your elucidation can I suggest Robert Norzick’s ; Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) ISBN 0-631-19780-X is well worth a read, can I further suggest that you get the Kindle edition, I feel that the marvelous text to speech facility of the Kindle device would be ideal for you as it will leave your hands free to either ring Mr Albanese or make your choice and just get it done.

  48. Tim Neilson

    Pete,

    May I suggest that Iampeter as you are a political literate should have read Iampeter as you claim to be a political literate?

    I agree with your analysis that much of what’s called “left” and “right” are the same.

    To my mind, though, trying to fit everything onto one line is difficult.

    As an example, consider something similar to the current Californian situation – imagine homeless people who are suspected of being infected with the virus are being put up in hotels during their quarantine period. (Not exactly California I know, but let’s imagine – and let’s assume the virus is serious enough to warrant some such measure.)

    Suppose (as is actually the case) they keep sneaking out of the hotel to chase smokes, grog and drugs. How does one address that?
    There’s actually three starting points, which may characterise three different approaches:
    (a) “Put a hobble on them like you would with a horse or other livestock you need to keep from moving quickly enough to escape”;
    (b) “You’ve got to let them do it because it’s their right”:
    (c ) “Give them free smokes grog and drugs paid for by taxpayers”.

    The first is caricature “conservativism”, pretty tolerant of authority being exercised when an individual’s behaviour is creating unreasonable detriment to others.
    The second is caricature libertarianism (though in fact at least as far as open border lunacy goes some people on this site aren’t far off this kind of mentality).
    The third is “progressivism” – not a caricature because that seems to be what’s being done in California.

    I’m not sure how they would be fitted on a single line. They’re just different.

  49. Pete of Freo

    Tim; irony. Clearly the gamut of human capabilities is too nebulous to place on the simple geometric shape, it’s as inadequate as the Yinyang and Gnosticism as an explanation of anything. The notion of left/ right is a obscurantist blind to convince the naive that there is some difference between the will to power of one group from the other, and that, somehow, the ambitions of one group are more pure than those of the other along with the laughable notion of “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs” and all of the profound stupidity of the Labour Theory of Value as dictated by a narcissistic sociopath and regularly applied by a pack of “experts” backed by thugs, or thugs backed by “experts” with no constraints on their willingness to unleash violence on whomever they please.
    My answer to your three propositions is that there would be no “virus” if not for a “nation” held together by terror and run by a pack of “experts” backed by thugs with no constraints on their willingness to unleash violence on whomever they please, there wouldn’t be so many drug addicted and homeless if not for another a pack of “experts” backed by thugs with no constraints on their willingness to unleash violence (however mitigated) on whomever they please, and so on.
    The poor will always be with us, Gertrude Himmelfarb is really worth reading in relation to this, especially in conjunction with Charles Murray’s Losing Ground, the takeaway being that Charity is an organic response to poverty and tends toward gratitude (mostly), Welfare is a mechanical response which breeds entitlement(without doubt).
    There is no secular answer to the wild anarchy of self interest we call the world, and certainly, obscuring the notions of the struggle for power behind a childish 180 degree model and then arguing its non-existent finer points is patently stupid, which is the secondary point of my post. The answer was nailed the Cross 2000 odd years ago and we’ve settled for what we’ve got. The primary point was that whilst I have a deep compassion for our poor, confused Iampeter, he’s still a wanker.

  50. dover_beach

    I’m sure if that was the case then you would’ve pointed to just one of them.

    IamMengele, there was nothing vague about that remark. You said this involved ‘special exemptions’ and it was pointed out to you immediately by twostix and Tim N that it was the opposite, that the churches simply wanted to be treated as other groups that were allowed to operate. And the decision of the court was to admit that the operation of the law in France was disproportionate and unconstitutional. You are such an ineffective and ignorant Leftist concern troll. Dear oh dear.

Comments are closed.