{"title":"传染、集会和宪法:1918年和2020年大流行中的互惠和宗教自由","authors":"Brady Earley","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwac004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"10 1","pages":"359 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contagions, Congregations, and Constitutional Law: Reciprocity and Religious Freedom in the 1918 and 2020 Pandemics\",\"authors\":\"Brady Earley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwac004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"359 - 393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwac004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contagions, Congregations, and Constitutional Law: Reciprocity and Religious Freedom in the 1918 and 2020 Pandemics
Abstract This article undertakes a comparison of legal restrictions on religious gatherings in the USA during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. After contextualizing each pandemic within its legal, political, and social culture, the analysis distills prevailing principles between the two health crises and their approach to religious liberty. Evidence suggests that courts in both periods relied on proportionality and equality to resolve disputes between government bans on worship services and conscientious objectors. However, the experience of multiple local governments in 1918 and other nations in 2020 models a better way. Instead of using proportionality or equality, these state officials relied on reciprocity between government and religious groups. Their approach tended to produce fewer bans, lower case counts, and greater trust during the pandemic and offers a useful precedent for current US lawmakers managing the religious freedom concerns of COVID-19.
期刊介绍:
Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.