fbpx
Articles

3 positive religious liberty developments

Pandemic challenges in Canada, Washington, D.C., and Scotland

/
April 2, 2021

Over the last year, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed a number of challenges to religious liberty. In recent days, there have been several major developments related to religious freedom on both the domestic and international fronts. Below we’ve highlighted three very positive developments spanning from Canada to Scotland to Washington, D.C.

Pastor James Coates released after 35 days in jail

James Coates, the pastor of GraceLife Church outside the city of Edmonton, Canada, has been released after 35 days in jail. Coates was charged with violating public health restrictions related to COVID-19. 

The most outrageous aspect of Coates’ situation is the fact that his “provincial infraction” earned him significant jail time despite being an infraction “that is not punishable by jail time.” Though he has been released and had his criminal charges dropped (pleading guilty to a “health order violation” instead), questions and frustrations remain concerning Coates’ unjust treatment by Canadian authorities.

In response to Canada’s mandate that in-person attendance at church services be limited to no more than 15% capacity, and that congregants wear masks while social distancing, Coates maintained his conviction that “whole congregations must meet together during one service.” When his congregation did not comply with Emergency Health Orders authorized by the Alberta Health Act, this set in motion Alberta Health Service’s overreaching and inequitable response, which ultimately resulted in Coates spending more than a month in jail. 

As the ERLC argued in February, the decision to jail Coates over COVID-19 restrictions was unduly punitive and a significant overreach of government authority. Coates has another court date in May. Christians should pay close attention to how this case unfolds, praying for a favorable outcome that recognizes Canadians’ right to religious freedom, even amid concerns for public health.

While the pandemic has warranted various precautions for the sake of public health and safety, the implications of this case, in particular, transcend present concerns and could have a significant impact for the future of religious liberty in Canada.

Numerical cap removed from Washington, D.C., churches

In a significant victory for religious liberty, Judge Trevor N. McFadden recently struck down the numerical cap applying to houses of worship in the nation’s capital. Notably, Washington was the last remaining city in the United States with a numerical limit on indoor religious gatherings.

Beyond removing the 250 person limit imposed by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, McFadden’s ruling also effectively raised the capacity limit applied to such gatherings to 40%. Under Bowser’s previous directive, worship gatherings in Washington were limited to 250 persons or 25% of the facility’s capacity, whichever was fewer.

While houses of worship in Washington are still required to practice social distancing, McFadden’s ruling will allow churches there to welcome hundreds of additional worshippers to their services. Coming just ahead of Easter, the loosening of such burdensome restrictions is certainly welcomed news.

Throughout the pandemic, the courts have provided an effective backstop for religious freedom protections. As Mark Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, “Most of the country has now stopped discriminating against religious worship — either losing in court or voluntarily changing the law — because there wasn’t evidence that worship was more dangerous than many other allowed activities.” 

This ruling from McFadden is one more positive step in the fight to defend religious freedom.

Scotland’s churches to open immediately

Judge Lord Peter Braid in Edinburgh recently ruled that the mandatory closure of churches in Scotland was unlawful and ordered that houses of worship in Scotland be allowed to open immediately. The ruling came after a group of 27 church leaders in Scotland “launched a judicial review at the Court of Session” making the case that the country’s government had exceeded its authority by closing churches in response to the pandemic.

Noting the complexity of protecting both the right to worship and public health and safety, Lord Braid said, “I have not decided that all churches must immediately open or that it is safe for them to do so, or even that no restrictions at all are justified. All I have decided is that the regulations challenged in this petition went further than they were lawfully able to do, in the circumstances which existed when they were made.”

Even so, the ruling is a significant victory for Christians in Scotland who have been denied the right to gather for worship. Christians in Scotland and elsewhere recognize the very serious nature of the threat posed by COVID-19. At the same time, the Christian worship gathering is much more than a recreational activity for believers. It is both a command of our Lord and vital spiritual practice, the absence of which does actual harm. Lord Braid affirmed as much in his ruling, “It is impossible to measure the effect of those restrictions on those who hold religious beliefs. It goes beyond mere loss of companionship and an inability to attend a lunch club.”

We celebrate this victory with our brothers and sisters in Scotland as they once again gather together for worship.

Additional resources

Explainer: Should the government jail pastors for violating COVID-19 restrictions?

Explainer: Religious liberty and Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

Jordan Wootten

Jordan Wootten serves as a News and Culture Channel Editor at the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a writer/editor at RightNow Media. He's a board member at The LoveX2 Project, an organization seeking to make the world a better place for moms and babies. Jordan is a graduate of … Read More

Josh Wester

Joshua B. Wester is the lead pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Greensboro, North Carolina. Read More by this Author

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24