fbpx
Articles

The good religious liberty news for churches in Nevada from the 9th Circuit

/
December 17, 2020

On Dec. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak’s pandemic restrictions that treated churches more harshly than other spaces, like casinos and restaurants. This is a significant win, as the ERLC argued for in our amicus brief in this case.

The case challenging Nevada’s non-neutral pandemic rules was brought by Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a church in rural Lyon County. Calvary Chapel is represented by the legal organization, and ERLC partner, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that made the case that Gov. Sisolak’s rules were both unconstitutional and illogical for public health during a pandemic. 

“The 9th Circuit got this case right,” said Russell Moore, president of the ERLC, as news broke yesterday of the church’s victory for equal treatment. Moore’s comments continued:

“Government cannot single out and treat churches differently from other gatherings simply because they are houses of worship. That is out of step with the First Amendment and our long American history of free exercise. I once again urge Governor Sisolak to instead partner with churches, as is happening in communities all over the country, to combat this virus. This is a time when we need trust and cooperation from every sector of society. Churches are eager to serve their communities safely, and should be allowed to do so.”

David Cortman, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Litigation, called the 9th Circuit decision “a significant win” in Calvary Chapel’s litigation with the state of Nevada. Cortman’s comments in an ADF press release continued:

“There is no constitutional right to gamble, but there is one that protects attending worship services. The government has a duty to respect the First Amendment, so it can’t single out churches for harsher treatment than secular activities. Today, the 9th Circuit made clear that, at a minimum, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley can’t be treated more harshly than Nevada’s casinos, bowling alleys, retail businesses, restaurants, and arcades. Such disparate treatment is both illogical and unconstitutional.”

Background on the case

Nevada’s COVID-19 guidance has been of particular concern and litigation for religious liberty advocates since it was issued this summer. The timeline, unfortunately, included a Supreme Court denial for emergency injunction in late July. “I am saddened and disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to bring sanity into this dispute over religious exercise in Nevada,” said Russell Moore in response.

Justice Neil Gorsuch perhaps sums up the situation best in his dissent, “The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”

As litigation continued, in September, Travis Wussow, ERLC’s vice president of public policy, and Ryan Tucker, senior counsel at ADF, co-authored an explainer outlining the timeline and arguments. And they encouraged Christians to think about the fundamental freedoms and public responsibilities in tension during the pandemic.

“The First Amendment provides broad and strong protections for religious exercise, and governments should ordinarily avoid any interference with a church’s worship practices. Indeed, religious freedom is a foundational, bedrock right that must be respected by our governing officials. Public officials also have the authority to protect public health and safety. These two public responsibilities may be in tension, but one does not negate the other; the First Amendment is not suspended even during a pandemic.”

Gov. Sisolak then made a change to his pandemic restrictions in October, reported as a “kick start to convention season”. While the new guidance would allow churches to hold gatherings of 250 people, casinos were permitted to continue to operate at 50% capacity without a cap on the total number of people allowed inside.

Before the hearing at the 9th Circuit, Moore spoke to the clear logic of the resolution needed, “if casinos can be trusted to be open while maintaining safety, then certainly churches can be.” He urged Gov. Sisolak to “stop singling out houses of worship, and instead to partner with churches, as is happening in communities all over the country, to combat this virus. These arbitrary and capricious treatments of churches undermine the ability to do that. Churches are eager to serve their communities safely, and should be allowed to do so.”

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on New York’s Restrictions

Thankfully, this is what the 9th Circuit panel decision allowed–respect for the fundamental freedom of religious liberty and equal treatment of similar spaces during a pandemic.

This week’s decision in favor of Calvary Chapel comes after the religious liberty win at the Supreme Court the Wednesday before the Thanksgiving holiday in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. Wussow wrote about the importance of the New York decision in a recent article, The Supreme Court changes course on religious liberty and the pandemic. This shift is meaningful not only so that public health policy in our nation respects the First Amendment, but also for the freedom of churches to care for their cities during this crisis.

How churches are serving Nevada

For pastors in Nevada like Vance Pitman, senior pastor Hope Church in Las Vegas, this year’s obstacles were also opportunities. “Our people saw an obstacle and began to serve in the community,” Pitman shared with the ERLC.

The congregation of Hope Church met the needs that the pandemic brought about in their city by providing meals for critical health care professionals, foster families, and others in financial need. The church also hosted drive-through COVID-19 testing sites and led over 20 supply drives for their area hospitals. Pitman recounted how the churches of Macedonia in 2 Corinthians 8 met the needs of their community, “for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity.”

“That’s exactly what we saw here in Las Vegas,” Pitman reflected, “our people served in the community and gave generously and in the midst of this incredible pandemic, we’ve experienced the greatest financial year in the history of our church. Every obstacle is an opportunity to see God’s faithfulness and join in God’s activity.”

This is a difficult time and just this week, the pandemic reached yet another grave milestone passing 300,000 Americans deaths from this virus. As the people of God, we know that in this grief-stricken season, we need our church communities. We need to pray together, provide meals for one another, support the nurses and doctors and pharmaceutical professionals providing healthcare, and yes, we need to gather together as the church as we are able. With this decision by the 9th Circuit, churches in Nevada are able to meet responsibly and serve generously in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges it creates for their communities.

Jeff Pickering

Jeff Pickering is the director of the Initiative on Faith & Public Life, a project of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is a leading public policy think tank in Washington, DC and the initiative exists to equip Christian college students for faithful engagement in public life. Jeff moved to Washington … Read More

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